SCULPTURE OF PENINSULAR SIAM IN THE

AYLiTHYA PE"RIOD

BY

Lnang llorih:d Hmibhall<l and A.B. Griswo ld

I

INTRODUCTION

1. Va?·iot4S Sc!tools of Art in Siam

'l'hc usually .accepted classification of the ancient statuary of

Siam - Dvaravati, Chi engsaen, Sukhothai, Ayuthya, etc.- are those

proposed by Professor Georges Coed ~s in 1926. They were not

intended to constitute "water-tight compartments", but ~>imply to

serve as a very general auJ flexible framework which might latpr

be subdivided and modified in accordance with the results of new

discoveries and furth er researcll.

As such, they have p t·oved a most useful guide for study.

But there has been a tendency to adopt them too literally.'

This can lead to difficulties.

1. Coedes himself complains, fm· instance, /.hat some time

after lhe pt·oposal of these classifications, the antiq·u.e dealers of

Bangkok commenced to offer " genuine U -'1' hong Buddhas'' for

sale; wher·eas, in reality, the cla.,sification "U -Thong" was intended

merely as a tentative label for· a la·rge and diverse transitional cate­

gory prob(l.lly dating from a little prior to the fmmdation of

Ayuthya (1350) and comtimting throuah th13 cady decades of the

Ayuthya period. (S ee Ooea'es, t·eview of Le May's Buddhist Art

in Siam, J SS, vol. 3 1, 1939.). In our per·sonal experience, u•e

ha ve seen both denlers and collectors, who, from cct?'eles.Mess or from

2 LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GHISWOLD

'I'he various st.yles of sculptm·e in Siam originated undl:'l'

complex influences, developed irregularly in space and tinH', merged

percrptibly or imperceptibly with one another, and usually

sm·vived in altered ft·om or as a persistent (though waning)

influence long after tlwy hail disappearerl as inrlepl'nrlent schools.

There are some wl'll-d<,fined Rchools, snch as th<" classic school of

Sukhothai, whose flourishing may be dated with some confirlNlCe.

Bnt Pven with these schools it is difficnlt to provide a pt·ecise dato

for the beginning, and qnite impossible for the ending'. It might

be thought, for instance, that. the Snkhothai School came to :;n end

in the 14th centmy, because in that century the kingdom of

Sukhothai became at first a vassal, anti then an int<•gral part, of the

kingdom of Ayuthya; hnt in the Snl~hothai region for a long time

afterwards many bronze statues ~ontinned to ho made whose

a wi8h to magnify the value of the'i·r JJO.~scsS'ians by 'increasing thei1·

age, att'!'ibute a piece to a ce1·tain "period'', and antomatically date

it from the elwliest time that could possibly be assig·ned to the style

so named. Fol' in.strtnce, because Le May (Bu·duhist Art in Siam,

v. infnt) g·ives the lOth centut·y as the earliest possible date for the

beginnings of the (early) C h·iengsaen st.tJlt!, all Ghiengsaen pieces in

the hands of dealer·s i-n Nakhon Kasem, including ''Late Chieng­

sae-n", some of wh·ich act·ually bear· insc1·iptions of the 15th 01· 16th

1;tmt·u9·y, automatically become ''mo·re than 1000 yeat·s old". D·u­

pont, ·in the a1·t·icle d1:scussed furthet· on in the text (BEFEO, 1942)

·remrwks on an U-tl.jor·tunate tendency o.f dm·ivative wr·iter·s to con­

sider all of the art of PeninsulaT S-iam occu·n·ing between the style

of Dvaracati and the purely 1'hai sehools as belonging. to the ttr't of

Sri Vijaya. 1' his in spite of the fact tlurt Coedes, in discussing

the class·ijication Sri Vijaya, says that he. has classed rnana objects

from the Malcty penin.mla under the label ''Sri Vi,iaya" fo1' con­

venience, and with the specific 1·e.ser·vation that " this does not mean

that they should all be atl1·ibuted to the a·rtist·ic influence of the

Palembang kingdom." (Coedes, Les Collections archeologiques du

Musee National de Bangkolc, Ars Asiatica, Paris anc~ B·J'Ussel8. 1928.)

SCULPTUI<E OF SIAM IN THE AYUTHYA PERIOD 3

general aspect ia closer to the classic Sukhothai style than tu the National ( Aynthya) school. Furthermore, the influence of the

Sukhothai style entered as one of the chief components into the

National style itself.

The components of the National style are very complex

and have not yet been systematically studied. The recession of

the Khme1· political dominion frotn crntral 8iam in the late 13t.h

century did not put au abrupt stop to Khmer art in the region;

Khmer art not. only became an important component of the

succeeding U-Thong and National styles, lJut also was destined to

play for some centuries a more speci fie rule in archaistic works and

conscious imitations.2 A more distant, btit no less impo1·tant,

component of the National style was the influence uf Dvaravati

art, both indirectly through its influence on Khmer art and directly

through its semi-independent survival and merging into the

U-Thong style. Leaving aside the ultimate influences from external

sources (such as Gupta, Pala, Burmese and Sinhalese), the most

immediate components of the National style are of course Thai and

Kbruer. The influence of these components, as well as the more

remote ones, was by no means uniform or regulat·. Different. piecea

show runch more of one, mnch less of another.

2. 1'he Nntionrtl Style in Siam

As tho kingdom of Ayuthya spread its political dominion

over most of what is now the kingdom of Siaru, the Ayuthya style of sculpture was widely adopted. Hel'lce, from about the 15th

century onward, it is con-oct enogh to refer to it as "the National

2. One of the mnst conspicuous examtJles is the la·rge bronze Siva in the National Museum, Bungkok, which wets brought from the B1·ahmanic 'l.'emple at Kamphaenu-Phet, and which bem·s a date equivalent to ltHO A .D. (lllustmted in LeMay, Buddhist Art

in Siam, Cambridge, 1988, plate 208.) - See Ooedes, Recneil des

inscriptions du Siam, Bangkok, 1924, Pa.1·t I. p. 1/J7.

4 LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

:-;tyle ". Geographical variations in sculptural style tendt-d to di<~

uut. In the North, however, which was only occasionally under

the political dominion of Ayuthya, \.he Ohiengmai School led an

imlependent existence until the 16th century or latel', but with

::~trong drafts of influence from the Aynthya School. But wherever

the kingdom of Ayuthya exerci~>ed political control the authority

of the National Style in m·t was stt·ong, and most of the statues

made after the 15th century in the provinces or vassal states of the

kingdom of Aynthya are difficult ot· impo;::sihle to distinguish from

th!.' oJ.'dincny types made in the capital itself.

The authority of the National Style was a cenh·alit:ed one,

mdiatiug in all dit·ections from the capital at Ayutbya. It la~:~ted

m•arly fout· huudred years, from the 14th centut·y to the late 18tb.3

It is an odd fact that, of all the ~:~chools of art that have

tlonrished on Siamese soil, the National School has np to the

prel:!ent been subjeeted to the least res<'arch hy serious students.

There is a much grflater mass of ~:~t ndy malet·ial available, hi~:~tol'ical

data, inscriptions, archeological sites, and sculptural flxamples, ou

the National Style than on any of its predecessors; hnt this

material h11s not yet hN>n systematically examined as a whole. It is not yet. possible, !]H't'efore, to trace the (](welopmE-nt of the

Natioual Style with auy assnrauc(', or to a~sign precise dates to its

various snbdi\>'isious.

'l'he comparati\'e lack of inter('st shown hy scholat·s towat·d

the National School may partly be explained by its rather

3. 1' hat is, the N aUonal Style did not hnmediat!'ly srwing

·into be·ing wUh the foundation of Ayuthyct in 1350, and the

U- '1' lwnu stylv (sometimes called "Erwlu Ayuthya, ") continued lo flonr-ish rtl least until the late 14th ccu tur·u, yradunlly gi1.•1:ng 11l1tCe

to tlw N11/irmal Style at about thai time. The rlf'slrttt:Uon of

Ayulhya by the Burmese 1'n 1767 mar·lcs the close of tlw A1rnthya

(N al-ional) Style of SC'lllpture. 'l'he tmdition, of course, did not die,

fntl lrtsled in a debased from well into lite 19th century, grrulu.ally

(}'icing place to unrestrnined eclecUc-iBm.

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE AYUTllYA PERIOD 5

stereotyped and unimaginative chat·acteJ·, and the mediocre artistic

quality of most o_f its enormously numerous output. For the most

part, it must be admitted that the sculpture of the National Style

deset'Vl'S its poor reputation. The National School suffered from a

progressive mania for quantity that amounted almost t.o a psychosis.

In such conrlitit.ions, it could hardly Le expected that its production

would be very distingnisherl. But in spite of the indifferent 11nality

of the great mass of its ontpnt, the National School produced some

works of art that are of interest either hecanso of their artistic

value or for some svecial archeological reasons.

3. Aynlhya 8' tono 8 cztl[ilttrc

By fat· the most illlportant of the prodnct.iow:l of t!tt' Natioual

Style of statuary are in hronw. But wootl, plaster, antl :;tone were

al:;o nscd.

!Jnt·ing Llw KhuJet· uceupatioll of CPntral Siam (early 11th

to late 1:~ th ceutut·y ), t.he School of Lopbnri wa~ the leading

expon!:Jnt of the Kbme1· tltylt· of scnloture in Sian1.4 Althongll this

school produced ln·nnu·s, llltH:lt of them are of cuu1paratively small

:;ize. The major sculpttll'e of the Lopburi school hl of stunc. 'l'lw

most populat· and characteristic type wat; the Buddha se!1teu on the Naga.

We havo alreada notieed that iu Hiam changes in political

dominion did not usually put a sudden stop to the style of art

4. 'l'lw ert?'liest JWOdudiuns in considm·a!Jle QUantity (if flu~

Khnl!J'l' School of Lopbw·i ap[!ea·r to be contemponti'Y tdlh the style

of Anolcm· lV rd (lwginninu of the 12th centtwy). 1'he J'ecc.ss·ion nJ

Khmer pol·iNcal dond'ltr111t'l' in Cmli'ral 8 il/.111. took tJlru:tJ at /he Nit!

of the -zsth l'enltti'!J. The A-hmer School of Loplmri (t~.s disUntJ/11:­

shed jJ'(Ifll. /.he C -1' ltOilfJ ttwl the ·"pseudo-Khmer" al'l that jlu1wislwd

late1· in the LotJlmr?· 1·eyion) mny therejo·}'(J be dated a[i[Jro.J·imlllely

1100-1300.

6 LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

l.H'evionsly existing in a given locality. So far as lmmze is con­

cm·ned this is true of the School of Lopburi, which continued and

even increased its production of bronze images in the Khmer

tradition after Khmer political rule had been replaced by 'l'hai in

that area. But it seems that the contrary is true in the case of

stone.5

It appears, indeed, that when the Thai conquered Central

Siam hom the Khmer they rejeett·d the use of stone for sculpture and confined themselves to the use of bron.,e, more in harmony

with their own heritage, The Khrue1· temples were allowed to fall

into rnin, and the senlptors of Lopburi ceased to work in stone.

It was not until three centuries latt·r that King Prnsat Thong of

Ayuthya ( 1630-16f>5 ), who solidified Thai power over Cambodia

and adopteJ the Cambodian royal tt·aditions, commanded that the

use of stene for cculpture Hhould he revived on a lat·ge scale.6

5. LeJ!l ay (Buddhist Art in Siam, p. 142), devot?:ng a bn:ef·

nolice to the school o.f st01w s1;ulptwre o.f the Ayuthya ?JeTiod, tcnn.'l

it the "Tmi-Do pbur·i 8 1ihoot". Appa?·ently wUhvut e:raminiu(J I he

question w-ith care, he comes to the very nat·ttTal conclusion tha.t

it centered 1:n Lo plnwi as a dir·ect outg?·owth o.f the KhmeT stone

school of scttlpture o.f that place, a·nd that it led either a cont·inuous

or intermittent life .fr·om the 14th tv the 16th OT 17th century at

least. If our· view is cor·rect, the sandstone heads illnstratnd in

Figu1·es 186-189 of Le111.rty's book .9hould all be dated ·in the 17th

century.

fl. H .R.H, Prince DamTong Rajanuliha.l,, Histm·y of Butldhist

Stu pas in Siam (in Siamese), Bangkok, W26. King Prasat '1' lw.11(}

was not the ji?·st 'l'hni kin(} to coni]UM' Cambodia, nor u·as he the

fir·st to take up the Khmer· ?'oyal tr·aditions. (Tho Thai first

cnptu.red Angkor· 118 eaTly as 14-10, and Angkor iiJas definUil!cly

ltbandoned as n capital by the Khmer in 1450.) But King P·rasat

Thong cvn.~olidrJ.ted Ayuthyfl,'S political control over Cambodia and

as.9wneJ the Khmer· traditions o.f kingship more deliberately and

systematicttlly than his pTedecessors.

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN Tl-IE A YUTHY A PERIOD 7

This surprising fact, while it cannot be pro\'ed conclusively,

is supported by strong evidences.

In the first place, there are only one ot• two examples of

sculpture in stone that. can be plausibly classified as U -Thong. 7 'J'ho U-'l'hong style, represented by a very large number of lwon:t.t'H

originating in the Mcnam Vally, is the mixed Khmer-Thai Ht.ylc

(resting on a substructut·e of Dvaravati tradition) which flolll"ished

both prior and subsequent to the founding of Ayntbya ( li350 ): namely, at the time when the 'l'bui were eonqueriug or absorbing

tho territories h~l1l hy the Khmer in Central Siam. The artists of these conquerors, though much inflnl'nced by the bronze statuary

of the conquered (and no doubt many of the U-'l'hang ht·onzes were actually the work of Khmer artists r(:lmaining in Siam after the

political defeat of the Khmet·) did not adopt the stone sculptural

tr-adition. Since it appears that the use of stone for sculpture

practically ceased in Ceutral Siam in the 14 th century, there is no

good resson to suppose that it revived thereafter until rhe art.iil.cial impetus it received in the 17 th century.

In the second place, there are certain large stone Buddhas in the Ayuthya and Lopburi regions that may hE> confidently assignerl

to the reigns of King Prasat Thong ( 1630-1655) and his son King

Narai ( 1656-Hi88 ) as they from an integral part. of foundations

attested by inscriptions and records to have been ordered by these

monarchs.8 Now, all the known stone sculpture of Central Siam

of the Ayuthya School bears such a close stylistic resemblatlCe to

these dated figures that it is reasonable to consider it as contem­porary with them.9

7. Le May, op. cit., fig. 169.

8. l!J. g., Wal OltaiwattanaNtm, Ayuthya, by King PJ"asat Thong; instnllation of a lrwge stfJne Buddha at Pmny {·,'run Y ot, Lopbu1~i, by King N am·i.

9. 1 possible e:vception may be noted in the "pseudo-Khmm·" stone sculptu1'es of Oentml Siarn of the Ayuthya pm·iod. 'l'his ca,tegory (paralleling the mo·re plentiful a:rcludstic b1·onze ·hna.ges

8 LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

In the third place, there is no known sculpture in stone of

the Ayuthya (National) Style for which there is any direct evidence

of dating outside the period 1630-1688 (reigns of King Pl'asat Thong

and his son King Narai, plns two very brief intervening reigns).

King Prasat Thong and King Narai exalted themselves by

reviving aud restoring the glories of the Khme1· past in Siam. 'fo

celebrate his suzerainty over Cum hodia, King Prasat '!'hong built,

Wat Nakhon Luang, a large-scale architectural model of Angkor

'l'hom in sandstone and laterite, on the Pa-Sak River between

Ayuthya and Tha-RUa. King Narai established a secondary capital

at Lopburi, partly because of the accessibility of Ayuthya to invasion

from the sea, bnt partly perhaps so that he coul1l be snrroundNl

with l'elics of Khmer art.

These two monarchs adapted existing Khmer antiquities to

the uses of Hinayana Buddhism in its f.orm of a state religion.

'fbey restored and altered decaying Khmer monnment.s. They

hnil new monuments of a design intended to echo the Khmer

mentioned above) was appaTently not ve1'1f nume·rous, and hct8 not

been carefully studied. vV e take it to descn:be ston1J statues made

definitely ·in the Khmer t1·adition, howeve·r debased, and showi·ng

little or no 1'hai iconogTaphicrtl influence. (These 8lrttues may t~n­

tleed have been made by KhtnM' "stay-behind'' IWNst.~ ?'ather than

'L' hni). in addition to ctwlain Bnthmanic wo·dcs, tMs category

would inchtde some Buddha8 seated on N agas, and a few sta.nding

Buddhas. Available examples of the latter are ·rare and in poor

r:ondoition. Two or tlwee of them are to be seen 1:n the go.down o.f the

Lopburi Museum. The borlie.~ have lost their heads and arms; the most charactm·istic ?'emnining feature 1·.~ a sort o.f belt decorated u.:ith

rosettes in the Khmer stule. The8e standing stone Bnddhas are ?'eminiscent of a group of woode1i Buddhas of the 16.th-17th century at Angkor W at wh·ich reflect the •impact of 'J'hai influence on

Khmer tradition. The description given 1:n the pTesent aTticle of

the stone sulpture of the Ayu.thya (National) Sehoul of course excludes the "pseudo-Khmer·" category.

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE AYUTHYA PERIOD 9

~:~tyle. 70 They modified the appearance of old Khmer stone statues

(especially Buddhas seated on the Naga) by the addition of plaster

and lacquer, converting the Kinner facial features into features in

the Thai tradition. 11 At the same time, they caused new stone

images of Buddha to be made in vast quantities.

It appears that the Aynthya school of stone sculpture,

artificially brought into being by King Prasat Thong, ctl.me to 1.n

end in the latter part of the reign of King Narai. After his reign,

there is no known stone scnlptm·e that may be plausibly attributed

to the Ayuthya period. Kaernpfer, a German who visited Aynthya

in 1690, mentions "many images as big as the life and bigger,

skilfully formed of a mixture of plaister, rol'in, oyl, and hair, t.he

outside of which is first varnish'd over with black and then gilt."72

'l'he pt·evalence of this technique may be attributed to the general artistic decline that became pron,ounced toward the end of the 17th century and continued steadily nntil the fall of Ayntbya, n.ud to

the ever-inct·easing deinands for "mass production'' of Buddha

images by quick and easy methods, without much rega1·d for artistic

values.

10. H.g., the bot: ·£n f·ront of Prang Sam Yot, Lopbur·i, bu£ll

by I{ 1:110 Nartu:. Fo1' a. studu of tlw ·imitations of Khmer m·chi­

ll.wl'ltl't' lii((dt• £n 81:{/m d un·nu tlw A.yuthya pm·1·od, see Pa1'111tmt·il'l·,

L'art pseudo-khmer dn Siam et le prang, .T. Gr·eatcr lnd·ia Sot:.,

vol. IV.

11. LcJiay, OJI. cit., p. 74. Several eremnplcs of th·is a·1·e to

be St!en ot the LnzJbllt'·i MttstJum. These examples show the la.cqum· ·in vm··ious stages of p1·esc·r/'((Uon rtwl rHla pt:tlation. I nc·idmtally,

this lacquer, though an njj?·ont to tht• a1'listic sense, has btwn of

valtw in J11'esm·v·ing some of thcst• Khmm· statw's intact aga.inst the

?'a-t'a(Jt'8 of tim1· and wetttht•r.

12. Lt!May, op. cit., JJ. 144; quoted f1·om Engelbert Krwmp-

ftJr, 'fhe History of Japan, !?·an.~fnft•d by .J.G. Sdu•utl1Z'M', Glrt.~(JtJIV, 1906, p. 4'7,

io LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

On the basis of the above considerations, and in the absence

of any direct evidence to the contrary, we have tentatively accepted

the view that the stone sculpture of the A.yuthya (National) Style

was an artificial revival started in the reign of King Pr·asat 'l'hong,

and ending with the l'eign of King Narai, and was therefore con­

fined exclnsively to the 17th centur·y. 73

Many of these stone images a1·e by uo means without artistic

merit. But their great number aud rathet· repetitive quality gives

them a monotouons air·.

The material used was generally white sandstone, soruetilnes

red sandstone. 'rhey were lacquered and gilded. Sometimes the

lacquer was put on in a heavy layer: in this case ·the modelling of

the stone was often sketchy and crude, the final details being intro­

duced in the lacquer. Sometimes the lacquer was no more than

the equivalent of a light sizing to hold the gilding; in this case the

modelling of the stone itself was more finished. 74 The subtle

18. It is rtlw:ty.~ Jlossiblt• thrtt ,quch rt thP-01'1/,· based pM·tly on

negat·ivt! evidl'nCI'S, uwy be u p8et by lail'l' d·ist:overit•s. E vn1 if ·it

lie not accepted literally, and it be suppoSi•d thrtl snme e:rmnples of

.~tone sculpture of the Nat.,;onal Style wej'e 1harle both befo1'e aml

after the 17th century, ne~.oeJ'theles.~ ·it rtppear.~ rwobablr lhflf the

grertf majm··ity was madt• in the 17th cenfu·ry.

14. There are hardly enough avat'lrtble t!Xamples or1 wMch the

original lacquer rmd gy'lding (as opposed to lrt fer 1·estorations) may

still be traced in m·de?' to U(tin ct pos·iNvt• idea of the prec·ise method

used or of the originctl 1·esultant effect.. Some examf'les hatJ/' the . fir!sh-prl1'ts and rasrni tinted w·ith a thin .~iz·h!{f of l'f!1'mil1'on lacquel'

ltJJOn which the g·ilding seems to hrwe been Jllated dh·et:tly; wh£le

other pm·tions of the l!fatue were cove1·ed with a th1'cke1· laye1' of

black lacq·um· and then gilded. Others .~t·em to have the layer of

black lacque·r put on over the thi:n s·iz-ing of t•ed ; but in this case

the bktclc ma.y haVI' been a lltie?' addition; as it ·is ha·rd to set' wh:t.i

purpose ,tha t·ad t:ould have harl if covn·erl with black. In some t:ases

the thin 1·ed coloring of the fie8h and rasmi was uppa1·ently ·intended

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE A YUTHY A PERIOD 11

delicacy of faded vermilion and wot·n gilding to be seen on some of

. these statues today perh;tps is largely due to the effects of time and

weather.

The usual position of these Buddhas is seated in Mamvi­

jaya. 15 The upper ga1·ment passes crosswise over the chest,

leaviug the right arm, shouldet·, and breast bare, bnt covering the

left breast, shoulder, and arm. A scarf, represented as a simple

to be finrtl, tvft.ile the hair and clothing wet·e COI}e?·ed with hearier

blitck la~:qner anr/ g·ildl'rl (~·.g., stone head from Aynthya ·in the pus­

Sf:.,sion of one of the pl'esent autho·rs.) 'Tiu~ sandstone head f?'O?It

Clta·iyrt, now in the N rtl·ional Museum, Baugkok, wkich is d·iscussed

belo11', at presml has the fa~:e lacr[a61·ed n:nd gilded, tohile the hai?'

i8 1;ouered with blrtdc la.cquer. This head is ea.rl·im· than the

N a.tional (Ayut hya) style, and we have no meft.ns of knowing when

the lr.tt;quc'l' and y·ilding we1·e added. A number of stone statues of

the Ayut hya pe?'·iod at J!l'esent hrtve ~:cl'la1'ns part.~ frwquered a.nd

g·ilded, and r:f'l·fain prwts mcrely lrtcyucred in black. H' ithout being

t·onclusit·e these fr!cfs seem to suggest thf/1, t'n the Ayuthya }JIWiod

a8 well as other }Jer·iod.~ of S·iarnese m·t, 11 nwnbM' of lliffeTtml

sdwmcs of color and gilding ll'ere ClnJJloyed.

15. Of t;ourse w·ithout the N aga. While a large number· of

heads of these statues have been preser'l'ed, espechtlly ·in the Ayuthya

and Lupburi J1u8eurm, the bu1Nes are rela.tively scarce. l'his is du1'

lo the fa,cf I ltnt t.he g1·ertl ha·rvest of heads ·was 1·ea.ped cl·m·t·ng f ht··

cOtti'Se of excavations in btt·ildt:ng the Northern Railway; lht' hcatl/5

wer·e considered valuablr• enough to keep, b·ut the bod·ies were gcnm·atly

broken ttp r.tn1l used as ballrtst ·in the railll'ay construct·ion. Stone

bo1L·ies 1:n othet• positions - seated on N agas or standing - hrwe also

been found; but it appears ??W?"e co·r;·ect to class·ify them as "pseudo­

Klonm·" '/'ctthtJ1' than ·in tht: main t·raditi.on of the N af·ional S chuol.

KrtemtJfer, ·in tlte )Jf/ssag,, from wkich (tn extra1:t has already bt.,en

'Jttoled, ·implies that (tll o·r nearlu all the ·in2age8 hc saw in 1690

were seated in llte position of Ma1·avijaya: "The right hand rests

upon tlw right knet•, and the left lies t:n iht• lap." (lo~:. dt.)

12 LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

fold of cloth, originates at the back near the left hip, pa.st~el:! over

the left shoulder, and falls nearly to the waist in front. The 1·asmi is usually in the form of a flame, of the ordinary Ayuthya

sort, deriving directly ft·om Sukhothai art. 76 It often contains a representation of the "magic syllable" Om. Sometimes it is

surrounded at the base by a ring of small lotus-petals.

While we may be pretty certain that all or nearly all of

these stone sculptures date from either the reign of King Prasat Thong or that of King Narai, it is difficult and perhaps unnecessary to distinguish between the two reigns. 1.'wo types of head may be distinguished. The first is slightly more square-jawed and Khmet• in appearance; the curls of the hair are t•epresented as round knobs, in a sort of honey-comb pattern, often with a narrow fillet between

hair and forehead. The second is more oval and feminine; the eyebrows and nose are reminiscent of Sukhothai art; and t.he hair

16. We use the iconog1·apltical terminoloo'!J pecnUr.w to Simnesc at·t, rather than that applicable· to the at·t of the H·indu·ized On:enl­i·n gene·ral. We use it solely fm· descriptive purposes and not with any implication that it all·udes correctly to any given a.tt·ribute of the Buddha or inc£dent in Ht:s life. The no1nsnclattwe of gestwro, codified in Bangkok in the 19th centu1·y, i.~ very likely 1:n man11 cases based on a mt:sconception of the ort:ginal 1:ntention; but it has the advantage uf conveying to the student of Siamese art certain specific and· well-known com.•entions. Similarly, ,:n desc1·ibing the

• tJctrious members of the headdress, we use the Siam1JSe iconographical terminology rtdopted by Prince Damrong. In this terminology the ketumala is the mot•e or less hemisphe·rical projection above the sk-Utll, covered with c1.wls and supposed to represent a gt·owth uf hair. (In the art of the Hinduized Orient in general it is usually called ushnisba.) The rasmi t:s the feat·ttre surmounting the ketu­mala and supposed tu 1·epresent a sort of aureole, as, for instance, the typical flame of the S·ukhothai School, or the typical lottes.bud of the Chiengsaen School. (LeMay calls th,:s feature the ketumala. See LeMay, op. cit., pp 114 and 118.) 'l'he parallels are as follows:

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE A YUTHY A PERIOD 13

i s re-presented either·as !mobs in a honeycomb paLlE' J'l1 or spirals in

a series of longitndina l rows, without fillet. It would be tempting

to assign the first typ.e to the reign of King Prasat Thong and the

second to the reign of King Narai, but this cannot be regal'Cled as a

certainty .17

Indian Siamese

b. Aliltayamudr·a Ham Y at (FO?·-

with r·ight hand bidding the Rela ­

t·ives to Dispute)

r:. .A.ldtct y r 1. m ttrl·ra

n·i th left hand

H ron Plwa Kaen

Chan (Heject?:ng

the Sandalwood

I mage)

d. Abha,yarnud?'a. Ham S amut w-ith both ha.nds (Calming the

Ocean)

e. V m·nm:t.td'l'rt Panu P ·1·athan

Phon (Bcsto!V'ing

FavoTs)

f. U shn.isha K etumala

(! . Rasmoi

Description

8 eated, with ?'irthl hand

?'esting on n:(Jht lm!!e; "lr:.f t hand /y-in(} ·in laLJ .

Hight forew·m e.?:/.e·nrlerl

jorwarrl with hrtnd

·upwar,f.

l~cjl jO?'ert.T111 e:l'le·Jirlerl

fonua.nl with h11.ml

'It JJWrt?'Cl .

Both .foJ·ew·ms o :lemJerl

.fO'r·ww·cl n·itlt llonds

UpLL'rt?'d,

A1·m fall?>nu at side,

hrtnd 0 1>Cn, palm f II cin.g

fO·I'UXtl'd .

JVI m·e n1· less lwm'is ljlteri­

':al p?'Oject-ion above

slcttll, sup JJOsed to re pt ·e­

sent a growth of !wiT.

01'nament rep-resenting

rcui'eole rtbovc nshnisha

O?' ketnmala.

17 . It is poss-ible that heads of the ji1·st type belon{]f!rl to

"pseudo-Khmer" bod,ies, ?'alhe1· than to the orrl'ina?'y stat'Ui!S sertlerl

in Maravijaya of the National School . 'l'he second type seems to

be that which inspired the 17th-cenlwJ'Y modi.fimt·ions of the oenui1w

Khm.e?' BHddhas of Lopbu.1··i b1; the acldit·ion of lacr;uer and oild1:ng.

PROPERTY OF THE SIA:\1 SOCIETY

LIBRARY

14 LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

Like the other manifestations of the art of the National School these stone sculptures, the idea of which originated at Ayuthya and I...ophnri, became popular throughout the kingdom. Numerous examples, indistinguishable from the art of the capitals, have heon found in various parts of Siam. It is not diflicult to guess how this came about. It was presumably by three processes: first, tho sending of examples from the capitals to provincial centers, where they were then imitated; second, the sending of artists from t.he capitals to work in pt·ovincial centers ; and finally, the sending of local artists to the capitals for trnining. It is

~enet·ally impossible to distinguish between metropolitan and provincial examples of this art; even the least successful examples in the provinces may he matched hy t•qnally sorry productions from the two capitals.

But occasionally, in certain ports of siam, the stone sculpture Qf the 17t.h century displays local variations that are so striking as to deserve special attention. There are seven such

statues in Wat Phra-Maha-That, Ohaiya, in Peninsular Siam.

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE AYUTHYA PERIOD 15

II

CHAIYA

1. 17th CenlM1'Y Stone St(ttues at Waf Phnt-Mrtlw-'l'hat, Ohoiyo. Wat Phra-Maha-'rhat, Chaiya, is a very ancient. foundation,

elating from the time that Chaiya \Vas a part of fhe Sd Yijaya

Empire.' It contains a famous stupa, dating possibly from the

Hth century, which, despite successive restorations, has not lost its

essential chal'llCter. The Wat seems to have led a continuous

existence fmm that time to this. A conside1·able number of ancient

images have been fonnd in the vicinity of this and other Wats in

t.he Chaiya district. Some of these are of Dvaravati style, some of

"Pre-Khmer" st.yle, and others are rightly Ol' wrongly attributed

to S1·i Vijaya ~wt. Here, therefore, it would not he surprising to

find echoes of such earlier styles in the art of the 17th century.

The stupa is surrounded by a rectangular open gallery,

built in 1901. At that time a collection of 16~ images of the

Buddha, ranging in height from about 1 metre to about 2 metres,

which had been in the posse~sion of the Wat for an nnreco1·ded

period of time- presumably since their manufacture- was installed

in the gallery and may still be seen there.

These images of the Buddha are made of red sandstone, of

a sort which is to be found in the mountain of Nang-E, about

ti kilometres from the Wat. Quarries in that mountain have been

1. It has heen m·uued that Chaiya wa8 in fact the capital of the Sri V1:jayrt Empi·re at the time of its U1'eatness. (See Quar. itch Wales, IAL, IX, 1985, p. 8 et ~eq.) Rut it 1:s mm·e generally believed that the capital was at Palembang, Swnatrrt. (See Coed)Js, JM BRAS, X IV, iii. Of. LeMay, op. cit., }J. 88 et seq., with re. ferences; Nilakanta, 8ast1·i, Sri Vijaya, BEF EO, XL, 1940, with . , refe1·ences; Coedes. Les Etats hindouises d'Indochine et d'Indonesie,

Paris, 194_8, p. 141 et seq. et passim, with refer·ences.) 'Phe ·resoln­tion of this point is not essential fo1' our present pw·poses.

16 LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

worked for centuries, and fragments of sculpture have been found

there. This red sandstone appears to be of a different sort from

that used in sculptures of the National School from Central Siam, but no geological examination has been made to prove the point conclusively,

'l'he technique used in !.he manufacture of these 163 images of the Bndhha appears to be similar to that nsed in the 17th century

stone images of the National School from Ayut.hya and Lopburi.

'fhe majority of the Buddha images in the gallet·y are figures

seated in tho attitude of M a·ravi.ia.ya, in the ordinary tradition of

the stone sculpture of the reigns of King Prasat Thong and King

Narai. 'fhey are monotonously repetitive, and if they ever had any

artistic merit at all, it is now concealed by n heavy covering of

lacquer and gilL.2

There is, however, a group of seven Standing Buddhas (one

in front of the bot and six in the gallery) which are much more

interesting. (Figs. 1-14.) Their at·tistic value, while not of the very

ilrst order, is much superior to the others. Like the others they

:u·e made of the local red sandstone, lacquered and gilded. It is

not clear how much of this lacquer and gilt is original, and how

mnch due to a latet• restoration. In addition to theit· superior ·

quality these seven statues display several remarkable variations,

not only from the othet· statues of the same period in the gallery

hut also from the whole corpns of known stone sculpture of the

Aynthya period.

Their position is standing. The facial features al'e out of

the ordinary. Some of the gestures ("Rejecting the Sandalwood

Image" and "Bestowing Favors") are nnusnal. Certain details of

2. In addUion to the images at W at P hra-M aha.-T hat, a

considerable numbe1· of other stone Buddhas of the 17th centw·y -mostly in red 8andstone - exist at othm· sites in and nea·r Ohaiya. M o.~t of them m·e very dilapidated, or have been ttnskilf'ully 'l'estm·ed. Insofar a.9 we have had the oppcwtunity to inspect them, we have ob8erved nothing worthy of remcwlr. nbout them.

Fig. 1 Gilded Stone Bnddha m front of Bot, Wat Phra-Maha-That, Ohaiya, Height : 1.65 m.

Fig. 2 Detail of Same

Fig. 4

Gilded Stone Buddha in Gallery, Wat Phm­JJfaha-That, Chaiya.

Height : l.55 m.

Fig. 3 Detail of Same

Fig. 5

Chldecl Stone Buddha in Gallery, .TVat Phra­l'ofahri-Th at, Chaiya.

Height : 1.52 m.

F ig . 6 Gilded Stone Bnddha in Galle1·y , Wnt Phra-Maha­That, Chaiya. Height : 1 .32 m.

Fig. 7 Detail of Same Fig . 8 Detail of Sa me

Fig. 9 Gilded Stone Bnddha in Gallc1·y, Wat Phm-Maha-That, Chaiya.

Height : 1.18 m.

Fig. 10 Detail of Sam e Fig. 11 Detail of Same

Fig . 12 Gilded Stone B1tddha in Gallery , vVat Phra-Maha-That, Chaiya . Height : 92 em.

Fig. 13 Gilded Stone Buddha in Gallery, Wat Phra-Maha­That, Chaiya.

Height : 1.72 m.

Fig. 14 Detail of Same

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE A YUTHY A PERIOD 17

the clothing- particularly the scarf represented in several pleats­

are peculiar. And the headdress of all seven of them, with the ornament in the form of a bodhi-leaf, is quite exceptional.

Viewing these statues as a group, we arrive at several pre­

liminar:y impressions. !!'rom their technique and general style they

mnst date from the Ayuthya period; therefore, since they are in

stone, they probably date fi'Om the 17th century. Despite some individnal differences among them their most striking variations from the ordinary art of the Ayuthya School are generally shared in common among them; this is true to such a degree that it seems

certain that they are all prodnctions of a single artist m· at least a single atelie'r. Tbey have been in Wat Phra-Maha-That longer than

the recollection of living wan, and presumably since their manu­factUt·e. The atelier that created them was therefore probably the 17 th century atelie1· of Ohaiya. 3

Unfortunately, there is no record at Wat Phra-Maha-That giving any information about the origin of these statues, nor of the

atelier that produced them. In order to deduce the probable facts

about such an atelier, and to account for the peculiarities of these

seven images, we must seek other parallels. In this search our most obvious clues are the exceptional details of the seven statues­the unusual gestures, the pleated scarf, and the boclhi-leaf ol'nament

in the headdress.

2. The School of Ohaiya

That a sculptural school of Chaiya existed some centuries earlier is highly probable. This idea was propounded by Pierre

a. Fo·r convenience in making the distinct-ion, we hnvt• arbi­trarily used the wm·d atelier to refer to the producet·s of the ·17th­

century images at Ohaiya, while t•eserving the word "school" for

the earUer School of Ohaiyrt disc-ussed by Dupont (v. infru). No distincUon as to the type of orga-nizatio·n is 1"1tfenrlt•cl.

18 LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

Dupont in a brilliant and int.uitive article published in 1942. 4 Du­

pont's article studios five objects which he proposes to attribute to

a single school- the School of Ohaiya. They are all of earlier date

than the seven standing Buddhas we have been discussing, but their peeuliarities present undeniable analogies with this group.

'l'hroe of the objects considered by Dupont are ::;mall bron)'.c

statuettes, formerly in the collection of H.M. King Rama VII, now

in the National Mnseum at Bangkok, and which are said to have

come from Ohaiya. Dupont tentatively dates them in the I!i th

century. 'l'hey are of no gt·eat artistic merit, but certain icono­

graphical peculiaritiE>s are interesting. All three of them represent

the Bnddha as standing aud performing a double gesture-" Forbid­

ding the Relatives to Dispute'' (right hand), and "Bestowing Favors''

( left hand ). Two of the statuettes have the scarf. represented as a

fold of cloth in several pleats, falling over the left shoulder and

reaching ne:wly to the waist. And the headdress of one of them

contained a small leaf which was perhaps a bodhi-leaf. 5

'l'he two other objects studied in Dupont's article are of

much greater interest. The first is the f~mons " Buddha of Grahi '•,

now in the Bronr,e Hoom of the National Mu::;eum, Bangkok. (Fig.

15.) The second is a head of the Buddha, made of white sand­

stone lacquered and gilded, now in the Stone Room of the same

museum. (Fig. 16.) 6

4. P1:erre Dupont, V arietes archeologiques : le Buddha de

Gmhi et !'ecole de O'aiya, BEFEO, XLII, 1942.

5. 1'he lert,f was clerwly 1>isU1le when the staJuette wrt8 -in­

spected by DuJJOnt in 1936. At thrd t-ime the tht·ee sfrttuettes were

covered with JJatina. 1' hey have s-i-nce been cleaned. In S-iam the

process of cleaning somet·imes 1:nvolves rather prom•iscuous sct'Ctpino

rtnd filing. The leaf, whether o·rigi·nal o·r not, has now been lost.

6. Dupont erro-neonsly states thrtt this head ·is made of b1·onze. The ''Bttddhn of Grahi" is illu.strrded in LeMay, up. cit., Fig. 45.

Fig. 15 The B1tddha of Grahi, National M1lSe'llm, Bangkok.

( Illustrated in Dupont's article )

Fig. 16 Guilded Sandstone Head from Ohaiya, National Museum, Bangkok.

Height : 35 em. (Illustrated in Dupont's article)

Fig. 17 Bronze }1nddha, Collection of Lady Ha1·isachandm, BanQkok.

Height : 41 em.

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE A YUTHY A PERIOD 19

The Buddha of Grahi was dug up in a paddy-field near Wat

Hua- Wieng, Chaiya, in the reign of King Rama V (1868-1910). Its

previous history is unknown. It is a large bronze figure of th~:~

Buddha, seated on a Naga. The Buddha and the Naga are cast in

separate pieces and were not necessarily made at the same time.

The Naga is of Khmet· type. It bears an inscription in the Khmer

language, but written in a rather peculiar chat•acter, stating that

the image was ordered by the Governor of Grahi. 7 'l'he date given

is the equivalent of 1183 A.D. Grahi is the ancient name of Chaiya.

At this time the Empire of Sri Vijaya was appreaching its decline

and Cbaiya was probably alrPady a part of the Empire of Malayu. 8

While the Naga is of Khmer type, the Buddha is not. Some

of the characteristics of this Buddha conform to a well-known type;

legs superimposed one upon the other, rather than crossed; right

hand in the attitude of M aravijayu; upper garment clinging close

to the body, and falling along the left side after passing over the left

shoulrler. 'rhese are typical of Thai art of the 13th and 14th cen­

turies. But hel·e the likeness ceases. The arrangement of the hair

is heavy and bulging. The ketwnala is nearly hemispherical and

is decorated with a bodlti-leaf in front. 9 The scarf, falling over

the left shoulder and reaching nearly to the waist, is represented

as a piece of cloth folded ,into several pleats. Some of these details

recall the three bronze statuettes. 10

Dupont tentatively dates this Buddha image in the 14th

century. LeMay, on the other hand, gives some persuasive reasons

for believing that the Buddha image, although made separately

7. Ooed'es, Recueil des inscriptions du Siam, I I ( Brwukok, 1929), p. 45; Ooed~s, A propos de la chute on royaume" de Crivijaya,

' B1'LV, vol. 83, 1927, JJ. 468.

8. Ooed'e.~, Les ~tats hindouises, 1J p. 274, 301.

9. Sec Note 16 lo Section I, rtbOL'e,

10. DUjJOnt, loc. cit.

20 J.UANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

from the Naga, and probably by a different hand, is contemporary with it- i.e., late 12th century, and shows considerable influence of late Dvaravati art."

Finally we come to the Buddha head in gilded sandstone from Chaiya. Its early history is unknown. It had formerly belonged to the collection of Wat Phra-Maha-That, Chaiya, for an unrecorded time. In 1928 Lnang Boribal Buribhand, one of the authors of the present article, was instructed by H.R.H. Prince Damrong to go to Chaiya to search for " Sri Vij11.ya" sculptures.

11. LeMay, op. cit., pp, 48-49.- LcMa.y is .~u1·ely t·ighf. i·n relating the Buddha of Grahi to tt ce·rtain type of seated bronze image which he calls "late Dvaravati ". The affinities between this type of sectted bronze image and the Bttddha of Grahi are strilcitt(J. ·The type to which we refet• is a categm·y that exists in considet·able quantity - particularly in the statuette size - but which has not yet been systematically studied, classified, or satisfactorily 'related to its p1·edecessot·s a-nd successm·s. (It 1:s 1"eprese1tted by F'igut·es 85, 67 and 87 in LeMay's book, as well as by a numbet• of pieces in the National Museum and in private collections in Bangkok.) Tenta­ti·vely, its outstanding featm·es mcty be listed as follows: legs· usually superimposed one upon thtJ other, and right hand perfm•ming tlte gestur·e of Maravijaya (bu,t sometimes botl& hands resti11.g in lap, and occasionally legs crossed); legs dt•aw·n inwa·rd (i.e., position af the legs, viewed from above, shows concave curve from one knee to shins to other knee); dimension from knee to knee approximately equivalent to dimension jt·om top of pedestal to neck of image; facictl features more in D·vm·avati or Khmet• tmdition tha·n itt Thai tradition ; headd1·ess surmounted by cone-shaped ornament. '1' his category of statuette appears to co·nsutute a mixed style in which late Dvaravatt~, Khmer and 'l'hai elements have tht!ir pa1·t in t'a1'Y· ing degrees in different examples. Depending on which elements predorni·nate, statuettes of this class have sometimes bern classified as late Dvaravati, sometimes (t8 Khmer, and some.times as U -Thong. LeMcty (op. cit,) seems to suggest that some of the statuettes of this

SCULPTURE OF SIAM lN THE A YUTHY A PERIOD 21

Upon his arrival, he was at once struck by the high quality of this

head. At that time it was attached to a standing body. The body

was made of cement, lacque1·ed and gilded, and was of modern

workmanship -probably dating from the restoration of Wat Phra.

Maha-That in 1901. Luan·g Boribal ordered the image to he removed

to Bangkok. In transit the cement body was broken ; anrl as it

was of no artistic value it was thrown away npon al'l'ival and the

head only inl!talled in the Museum. Prior to installation, at t.he

order of Prince Damrong, a small bodhi-!eaJ', in imitation of that

on the Buddha of Grabi, was made in plaster an1l placed in front

class rc twesent a f·J'rt.nsi /:ion f1'01Jt late DVIt1'((Vati tv Khllle?', and

othCJ'S the rrJ-trrmM:Uon f'rom Kh111et' to U -1'honu and Ayuthya.. 'Phis

11tny be so, but it wonld be di.(ticult to e,qfabUsh posilit·cly on the

bas·is of the evidence ·in hand. Another possible hypothesi.~ is that

they ?'epresent the snmi-independent stwv·it:rtl o.f the Dva1·avati styl1!

into the Khmm· rt.nd Ayuthyrt pen:ods, co11.lrtmi,nated ·in vary•ing de­

urees by elements of the lattM· styles. So Wtln systematic att.ention

has so .frtr been pctid to tltis class of statuette that Wtl do not even

feel on firm g·rmr.nd h1. cons·idm·h1g U to constitute rt "style'' OJ'

"school", and we rtre ~·m·tainly not so bold us to p1·opose dates for

it, except with·in very broad limits ( i. c., lith to 15th centw·ies ). For om· present purposes, U is stt.ffident to notice tha.t (a) u•ltateiJ(!'I'

this r:lass of .~tatuette rna.y be, it is partly, and p1'0bably ba8·ically,

dtwived from late Dvrwavali art; (b) the cha·racterislic posUion and

form of the body are .~trikingly ·recalled by the Br.tddhct o.f Gmhi;

(c) the typical cone.sha jJed ornament of the headdress - whateuer

Us origin - is 1·ecalled by a.t least two, aud possibly all three, o.f the

bronze standing statuettes Wnstroted in Dupont's article. 1'o sum

n p this 1·ather com plica.terl rtrgu,ment, we . may say that both the

Bttddha o.f Grahi, and the th-ree statuettes illt.tstrated by Dnpont, show mm·lced a.tfinUies with a type of a·rt which is eithe·r late Dva.rn.­

vctti 01' rtt least strongly in fl ttenced by the lrttter. The pleated scrw.f

may have been ·imitated from certain Dvar·mxtti stat·ues, such ns

that illustrated in Ooedes, Recueil, Part I, Plate V, left side.

22 LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

of the ketttmala. The leaf was then lacquered and gilded. (This

was its condition when the photograph was taken which appears in Dupont's article.) Several years later· the plaster bodhi-leaf fell off and was not replaced. T1·aces of where it was formerly stuck

on may still be detected. In its present condition the head probably approximates fairly closely to its original appearance - although we cannot be sure whether the l'emaining lacquer and gilding are partly original or entirely the work of a restorer.

The facial features of this stone head are very regular, and reminiscent of Indian or lndo.Javanese models. The ketmnala is almost hemispherical. This head is closely analogous to that of the Buddha of Grahi; although the face is a little different there are

the same peculiarities of hair arrangement.12

Dupont concludes that the val'ious relationships of the five

pieces discussed, taken togethe1· with the fact that all five were found at Ohaiya, justify the conception of a "school " of art - the

"School of Ohaiya". He considers that it was Sinhalese influence­one of the major component influences of Sukhothai art - that probably gave rise to the School of Ohaiya at about the same time as the rise of Sukhothai and U-'fbong art, and that t.his influence was intimately connected with the spread of Sinhalese Buddhism in Siam from the 13th century onwards.'3

Although some of the proposals in Dupont's article may be

left subject to further verification or modification, his main point seems incontestable: namely, that a school of sculpture existed in Peninsular Siam, centering about Ohaiya, at some period between

the late 12th century and the end of the 15th. (The precise dating

of the products of this' aohool within these limits may be left undecided).

We must now ask ourselves whether the school had come into exi·stence earlier than the late 12th century, and whether it

continued to exist after the 15th.

12. Dupont, loo. oit. 18. Dttpont, loo. oit.

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE AYUTHYA PERIOD 23

The answer to the first question is intimately connected with the whole question of the existence of a school of "Sri Vijaya" art in Peninsular Siam. Convenient as the term may bo as a general label, it seeins to imply that, during the period of the Sri Vijaya Empire's political ascendancy over Peninsular Siam (approximately

8th - 12th century), works of art were produced in that area sufficiently homogeneous in character to constitute a "school". 14

Examples of ancient statuary emanating from Peninsular Siam display a great variety of styles, each style often represented by only one or two examples. Since in most cases these more or less isolated specimens can correctly be integrated into known Indian or lndonesian styles, and have no stylistic descendants of their own in Siam, it may be assumed that they were imported. On the other hand, a sufficient nnmber of smaller bronzes, sufficiently homogeneous in style, bas been found in Peninsular Siam to justify the notion of a real school of art. It is these images, ultimately deriving from the "Late ·Gupta" art of the west coast of India,

which can probably be correctly termed Sri Vijaya art. Indo­Javanese parallels enable us to date this art as beginning about the

8th century.15

Instead of trying to untangle the question of Sri Vijayn art, which has caused prolonged and sometimes acrimonious controversy among learned writers and zealous amateurs, it will be sufficient for our purposes here if we distinguish between the strict and the loose definitions of "Sri Vijaya art". The strict definition should cover only those objects made by the artists of the Sri Vijaya

Empire, within the limits of that Empit'e. It is not necessary here to decide what objects, if any, may he correctly attributed to this

classification. The loose definition of "Sri Vijaya art ", on the

other :hand, may be con\'eniently used as a sort of catch-all to

14. For the history of Sri V ija.ya, with cu·idences and cun­

ple references, see Ooedes, I..es Etats hinclonises, p. 141 et seq. et

passim.

16. Dupont, loc. cit.

24 LUANG BORJBAL AND A.B. GIUSWOLD

cover a very wide variety of stone statues and hrou:t.es fuund in

Peninsular Siam (exclusive of Dvaravati art), and· dating from the

7th or 1'\th century to the l:~th or even later. Whether all or any

of these objects should he attributed to Sri Vijaya art as narrowly

defined, and indeed whether they wet·e locally made or imported.

are questions which we leave open.'6

The significant fact is that not only a certain uumber of

Dvaravati sculptures but also a considerable number of scnlplures

t.hat may be loosely called "Sri Vijaya" have been found in Chaiya

and it!:! neighborhood. Whether locally made or brought from

elsewhere, presumably lllOi:lt of these objects have been in Chaiya

and its neighborhood since ancient times aud were known to artists

16. If we add to tho szJec-imens of "S1··i V1:}aua art" as tlws loosely dejined wldclt are to be fowtd in publ·ic collections a. n-um­

ber of bron~·es in pr·ivate collect·ions, the quantity becomes 1'easonrtl!ly

£mpress·ive. (e.g., cotlcct·ion of H.RH. Prince Bhanubhandhn Yu­

g(tltt, Bangkok; collection of H.R.H. Pt·ince Chalermbol Y ugalrt,

Banglcolc; collection of Mr. Hole Seno, Bangkok; 8omc smaller pn:va.te collections nt Su,.rat-Thani, Bandon and N akhon Sn:-1' ham_

nutrctt, 0 f. the br·om:e Buddha stnrulino on a lotus pedestal wp­

por·tod by Yaksas, dug up ·in A.mph;j That-Sa.la, Changwat Naklwn

Sd-Thtunmarat in 1946, and now in the museum of W at M aha­That, Nakhon Sri-Thammarat.) Adopt-ing the clas.sification "Sn: V?"jayct" as a convenient catch-all (a8 in fact the National l'J.l usewn

rtt Bangkok hcts done)permits 1t8 to av·iod the touchy question of

whether nll, 80me, or none of the statna-;·y found in Peninsular

Siam und dating bef01"e the adoption of the National Style in that r·egion can be correctly defined cts Sri Vijaya art in the proper

sense. In the present nrticle, where the word "Sr·i Vijaya,'' appears

in inverted commas, r'eference ·is made to the classification a8 loosely

defined, and without im:plicaUon tha.t the objects aTe the producl8 of nrtists working within the confines of the S·ri Vijaya Empire.

Whe~c r·eference is made to the m·t of Sr1: Vijaya as strictly de­

fined, it is so stated.

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE AYUTHYA PERIOD 25

of intervening periocls. 77 Furthermore, those objects known today

probably represent only a small proportion of the ancient statuary

which was once at Chaiya. This i:; particularly true of smaller

bronzes. Rnch "Sri Vijaya •' bronzE'S have been dug up at Chaiya

17. 'l'o cite some of the 11/0;·e imj>O?'lanl e.ramples:

(a) 'l'orso of slrtndinu slon!l Buddlw, Dua?'ttl'ali style,

'J)1'fSe1'Ved at Wat Kruw, Ulll.l·iya;

(b) Torso of 8/an!ling slum: JJwldha, nl'rt?'rt.l.'llt·i sly!r:,

preserrerl outside the lilinn·u of Dlwmmudana li ouso, () ha•iJJrt ;

(c) SfO!ll! Vi.~lmu. from Cludya, now nt N11t·irmal

.illu.~eu.m Brmgkok (Jfu.~ewn munber K. Kh. 8; see Du.JJont, Vishnu

mitres cle l'Indochine occidentale, BEF EO, XL, 1940.)

(d) Stone Bodhisattva 'f'}'(iiU ~Vat Phm •• ~frtha-'l'liitl,

Ultaiya, now in the Nal·ion((l Jlusenm, Bangkok (11fusenm number

s.v. 1.1.)

(e) Statues ·itlusiJ'rttl!d in Coerles, Les Collections

archeologiques dn Musee National de !3angkol•, A1·s Asial·ica (G. Van Otl8t), Par·is and Bnt88els, 1928, Plates X I I-XVI I.

The 'presence of these awl other wul'1r8 of art ·in the Chat'ya

rwea st'nce anc·ient t£mes ve?'Y likely conll'·iuuted to the format·ion of

late?' locrtl styles. Sevm·al of these objects aTe utU.Lttest·iunably ·im­

J.JO?'lations. But the loikel·iltood that a loml school of sculpllwe ex£sted

rtf Chaiya between the 8th mul 12th centuries 1:8 suppol'led by tlte

t:x·islence of rtrcltUect-urnl ?'ema·ins, which, though 1:n a, ruinous t'<m­

d·it-ivn, d·isplay a su,ffic·itmtly h·iglt aJ•tist·ic mM··it ·to .i tt8Nfy the

assu.m.p(ion that the a1'r:h.Ztect1we was ru:companierl IJy lowlly made

statua1'y. The ar!·hitectnre has strong analogies with H iwht-Java.

nese art (as have may of the statues found at Cha·iya.). Aside from.

the stupa of W at Ph1·a-M aha-That, three of ihe mrmt ·important

early rema-ins at Cha·iya rwe TV at Lung, W a.t H ua- W ·iena, and 1-Vat

Kaeo. (See Le1~ay, op. cv:t., )J. 44; Coedes, Le Musee National;

Claeys, L'Archeologie dn Siam, JJ[I)FEO, XXXI, 19.'31; Quaritch

Wales, Culture Changes in Greater India, JRA8, Apn:l1948; al80

the references c-ited i·n those wo;·ks.) Theso remains rwe notable frw

the fineness of thei1' b?'1'ckw01·k; the bricks ((·l'e 111arle with ca1·e ond

26 LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

"'ccurncy, and .ioined in the st1·ucture 1citlwut morta1·. A good many

yea1·s rrgo, two anc·ient stones bearing S ansk1"it imwri ptions we1·e

sh·ipped f1·om Peninsulrw Siam to Bangkok. (1'hese inscriptions

const?:lnte Nwnl)(>,r X X I I I and X X IV ·in Coerl'es' Recneil des In-

scriptions du Siam, Hanykok, 1929.) One mnw f?·um lV at Sema-

Miicmu at Naklwn 8?·i-1'hammru·at, the ot!tm· from lVat Hua­

l-V·ieng at Oltrt'iyrt. But, rtr'cording to a theory proposed by M1·.

J)Jwmmrulasa Ban·ij, of the Dhanmwdana Society at Clw·iya, the

atl·J·ihu.lions liecame m-iJ:cd, 11nrl the inscription thnt nct·ually arrne

from Olwt:!f,t -is now rdtr·ibuted to Nalchon S?"t-1'hrrmnuJ·rat and

vice'-versa. 'l'he insct"iption whi~h. acco1·ding to th-is thco?·y, really

came j1·om C hrt·iya, belt?'S n daft! er)uivalent to 77 5 A .D.; it celebrates

tlw frtme of rt l.'lil'ta-in king of ,','n: Vi.faya, and commmno?·a.tes the

foundal·ion of three sanctwu·ies. 1'he pertinent paJ·ts of tMs in­

scription may be tift•JYt p/w(lserl as follows : " 1'ld8 K1:ng, 1rho •is the

·receptacle of all virtue, ·is also the worldly suppo·rt .of lhoSIJ me1J

whose mer·its sh-ine lilce the summits of lhe H 1:nw.layas and whose

renown is h-igh - just as the Ocean, the dest·roym· of evil, is the ?'t:ceptade of mrmy }ewels and the abode of thtl Nrtgas with gem­

haloed hoods. ""JIJ en who&J he11.?'ls weJ'C unawed by the fire of poverty

rrtme to kim and put themselvBs in his pot.l.'er, just as eletJha.nts toke

i'e.fuge f'I'OJil the hertl of the wn in a str·earn of pure wale?' {1-ilderl

hy the tJollell of the lotus. AtJtJr•oaching this v·i•rtumts King fnnn

nU parts of the wol'lrl, merito1·ious men come to Mm and nre r:overerl with .fortune, }ust rts in the .~cason of fruits and flowers, such

trees as the mango and the biln1l n.re tOI'IJ?'erl with grwtt beauty. Vic­

toriou.~ ·i.~ the King of Sri V·ijaya, who.~e tlwone is warmed by t·ays

emanating from neighboring Kings, and who was C1'ealed by Bmhma

as if w-ith the exp1·ess purpose of perpetuating the famous Dharma.

1'he King of Sri Vi}aya, the ttnt'i1•alled suzerian of all the neigh­

bo?'ing K1:ngs of the earth, founded ih!'.se three excellent buildings of

brick, to be the abodes of PadmaJJml.i, of the Buddhn, and of V rt.i­?'a pani." Acc!l'l'diug to .Mr. Dharnmadasa's theory, these ''th·ree ex- c

r:ellent bu.ild-ings of brick" ct?·e nontJ other than the three 9·u£ns in the

mwient city of Chaiya: the abode of the Bodh,isattva Padmaprtni

1:s W at H ua- Wieng, that of the Buddhct is W at Long, and tha.t of

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE A YUT.HYA PERIOD 27

in modern times and fonnd theit· way into private collections.18

They have theit· parallels in the collection of '' St•i Vijaya" bronzes

at the National Museum, Bangkok, some of which were found at

Ohaiya, but most of which have now no traceable history other

than that they '"'ere found in Peninsular Siain.

We have already seen that the ''School of Ohaiya '' which

produced the five objects stndicd in Dnpont's article does not cor.

rectly fall into the category of Sri Vijaya art as stdctly defined.

The earliest possible dating for any of these five objects is ah-c•ady

later than the disappearance of Sri Vijaya rule from that regi()n.

However, it is entit·ely logical to bolil'Ve that a school of art

rising at ·Ohaiya in the late 12th centnt•y ut• latet· would draw its

inspiration in part from earlier pieces then located at Ohaiya. And

a cornparision of the products of Dupont's "School of Ohaiya"

with the bronze Buddhas belonging to the category of "Sri Vijaya",

ns loosely defined, tend·s to confirm this view. 19

the Bodhisattva Vaj1·apani is Wat Kaeo. Althouuh objed·im1s to tkis identification may readily be raised, n re-exarn£nation of the two iuscriptio11s in the light uf Mr. Dltmnmadas(t's them·y of the tra,nsfer of the labels might produce u,qeful t·esults. '1.' ha.t there toa.s already some doubt as to the labellitl{} of these two insc1·i ption.~ at the time of tlte publicaUon uf Ooedes' Recueil appears from the fact that the pt·ovenance given .for one o.f the inscriptions was a.l. tered in the corrigenda. According to ill 1', Dhammadasa's them·y, of course, tMs alteration was an et•t•oneou,s amendment of a p1'evious error. Of. Brah Guru Indaprtnnacltarya, Naeo so.nglthep khong

Borankhdi rop Ao Bandon, ("A. Brief Account of the AntiquiUes Surrounding the Bay of Bandon"), Ohaiya, 1950.

18. E.g., a small bronze Buddha uf "Sri Vi,iaua sll!le", d·ttg up in 1901 at vJTat Phra-Maha-That, Ohaiyrt, and now in tht• collection of Khun Vichitra Kochasiribongsa, Bandon.

19. Ooedes (Le Musee National de Bangkok, p, 81) 1·emarks that ancient images of the Buddha ftwn Peninsula1· Siam are rare in comparison with BodJt.isattvas. H oweuer, if we conside'l' Buddha·

28 LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

We feel that the "School of Ch<dya '' was a good deal

influenced not only by late Dvaravati art, but also by the ''Sri

Vijaya" bronze Buddhas which were well known to the sculptors

of Ohaiya. But whether ot• not an ateliwr existed at Cbaiya in Sri

Vijaya times, and if so whether the school of Ohaiya discussed by

Dupont was Hs successor or continuation, we have no means of

knowing.

What became of the school of Ohaiya after the 15th century?

The number of pieces that. can as yet he plausibly attributed to this

school are too few in number to allow us to trace its development.

A possible clue, though not a very clear one, may be found in a

bronze statuette of the Buddha in a private collection in Bangkok,

that of Lady Harisachandra. (Fig. 17.) The facial features and hair

arrangement are closely akin to those of the Buddha of Grahi and

the stone head. 'l'he ketttmalct is ornamented with a very distinct

budM-leaf, like that of the Buddha of Gt·ahi. 'l'he scarf is re­

presented as consisting of a cloth folded into fom parallel pleats.

'l'he portion of the monastic robe falling from t.he outstretched left

forearm is represented in a wa·vy outline. '!'his statuette has been a

good deal restored; hnt, so far as we can detet·mine, the peculiarities

of the lrl!tumala with its bodhi-leaf and of the scarf are ot•iginal.

Although the hands are new, the original gesture seems not to have

been altered; the left forearm was extended in the gesture of

"Rejecting the Sandalwood In~age •,•. 'l'his statuette comes fr·om

images found ,·n Pen·insu,lar Siam sttbsequent to the pttblicrtUun of his wm·k, and also tho.Ye in private collections, they ctre fai1·ly nu­mcrmts. Sttch Buddha image.~. belonging to the category of "Sri Vi­jaya nrt" as loosely defined, must lutve been fa£rly plentiful at Ohaiya. Whatever inspimtion the School of Oha1:ya drew j1·om "Sri V ijaya art'' appem·s to lutve come mm·e directly from this type of Bttdrllut image than f~·om the la·rget• stntttes cited nbovo as ·illustrated in Ooedes' Le Mneee National. We huvo citod the lattc1' me·rely to demonst1·ate that examples of'' S1··£ Vijaya nrt'', as well a.~ of othe1• early schools, e:risted in some fJ.Itrtntity at Ohaiya.

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE A YUTIIYA PERIOD 29

Peninsular Siam, and wm; acqni1·ed a nnmhcr of yeat·:,; ago hy the

late husband of the preseut owner, wheu he was reHiding at Nakhon

Sri-'l'hamrnarat. Because of the restorations, this :;tatnette is (lX­

ceedingly difficult to date. It seems to belong either to the " School

of Chaiya" itself, or to some outgrowth of that school.

Whatever may have happened to the School of Chaiya after

the 15th century, we have seen that an rtt1·Z.irT certainly existed at

Wat Phra-:VIaha-'L'hat in the 17th ccutmy, aJlrl pt·oduced a quantity

of stone Buddhas. \Va,: this rtldier a continuation or a revival of

the earlier school~ If it was a revival, what wns the re,•iving force

that impelled it to produce over lGO sto!le images within the space

of two reigns, and what were the inllneucl's that went into these

productions~

3. 1'/u• Sehoul of 0/t(f·iya rt11d llu~ 11'1/t Ucn/ti'J'!f Atelic·r of Oludya

Probably tho School of Chaiya declil1cd after the 15th cen­

tury. Certainly the three known examplt-s of its 15th century

production (the bronze statneltes illustrated by nnpont) show little

enough skill Ol' creative ability.

When p1·oduction revived at CJmiya, in tlw 17 lh century,

it was under a new and powerful stimulnK. 'l'hiK was simply the

enormous demand for stone statues of the Buddha made fashionable

by King Prasat 'l'hong. Cbaiya becamE! onP of many rrldil'l'8 througlJ­

out Siam which tnrne!l ont more or less faithfnl reproductions of

the pl'evailing sty !e.

For the m·igin of the technique tl!\d predorui11atiug elements

of the 17th centul'y stone Buddhas of Chaiya, we need look no

further than the Ayntbya stone scnlptnre that sprang into being to

glorify King P1·asat. Thong. The 150-od<l sea\t'd Buddhas in the

gallery of Wat Phm-?viaha-'l'hat tJhow little or no variali(_ln from the

National school in g(•neral. But, the soven standing Budflhas aro in

a different category. Despite theii· genc•·al confonnity with the

National School, the variations from it di:;played l>y them are very

so LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

considerable. We have already noted these variations in a gene•·al

way; and it will now be useful to review them in detail and to see

how they may have ol'iginated from the earlier "School of Chaiya"

itself or from othet· sources.

1. Their position is standing. This position, though com­

mon enough in Ayuthya bronzes, is rare in Ayuthya stone aculpture,

and not at all encountered in the other 17th century atone images

at Chaiya. Bnt the stauding position is in itself not very conclusive,

as it could have been derived from any of a great variety of sources.

2. The gestures represented are unusual. No less than five

of the seven (Figs. 1, 4, 5, 12, 13) perform the gesture of "Reject­

ing the Sandalwood Image'', thP. l1;jt fol'earm extended with the

hand upright. (Some of the hands are broken off, but there can

be no doubt of their original position.) This gesture, though

occasionally encountered in Dvaravati art and in Aynthya bronzes, is rare in Siamese art in general. Ita predominance in this group

of standing Buddhas ( i. e., in five out of seven of them) is a

remarkable individual peculiarity of the 17th- century ateMm· of

Chaiya, shared by Lady Harisachandrn's statuette. One of these

stone Buddha!:! (Fig. 12) in addition to performing this gesture with

the left hand, at the same time performs t.he gesture of " Bestowing

Favors" with the right, which is quite extraordinary. 'fhe same

unusual double gesture is to be seen in a stone Buddha, of Dvaravati

style, in the National Museum, Bangkok.20 H may have been

more common in Dvaravati art than examples known at present would lead us to believe. At the same time, this double gesture

recalls- inverse) y - the double gesture of the three bronze stat uett(•s

illustrated by Dupont, which have the right hand "Forbidding the

Relatives to Dispute " and the left "Bestowing Favors". Only

two of the seven stone Buddhas (Fig. 6 and 9) perform the gesture

20. See Coed~s. Le Musee National, Pl. I I. 1'he left hat1d, broken off, was probably performing the gesture of "Rejecting lite Sandalwood Image,"

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE AYUTHYA PERIOD 31

of "F'orbidding the Relatives to Dispute", and none performs the

gesture of "Oalwing the Ocean", which are the two mo~t usual gestures of standing Buddhas of the National Style.

3. 'l'he monastic robe of the seven stone Buddhas is generally reminiscent of ol·dinary Ayuthya urt.2 ' But. there are

some variations. In three of these statues (Figs. 1, 12, lil ), the

portion of the monastic t•obe that falls from the extended forearm is represented in an unusual manner- namely in wavy outline. 'fhis feature is reminiscent of certain Dvaravati Buddha~.22 In three of the seven stone Bnduhas l Figs. 1, 4, 5 ), ther~ is an even more conspicuous variation- namely, the scat·f represented as a piece of cloth folded into four or five pleats, falling over the left

shoulder neat·ly to the waist. This pleated scarf is never encountered in ordinary Ayuthya art. It is so unu~ual a feature, and so strongly

reminiscent of the Buddha of Grahi, as to SUI!lgest a direct imitation. 'l'wo of the bronze statuettes illustrated by Dupont have the same feature, but less clearly shown. So has Lady Harisachandra's sta­tuette, but it does not reach down quite so far. The latter fact

may be of some significance, since the only other type of Siamese image possessing the pleated scarf as a regular feature is the so­called "Sihing" category of bronzes of the neighboring region of

Nakhon Sri-'fhammarat, which are discussed in the next section. In the Nakhon Sri-Thammat·at bronzes, the pleated ~carf is mnch

shorter, stopping above the left nipple, and often frilled or ro­

presentM with ~ome caprice.

21. Some deta-ils of the costume ·recall the wooden Buddhas of the 16th.J7.th cenlut•y at Angkm· Wat. 'l'he belt, o?·namentecl with sqwwe m· r·ow1d 't'usettes, is si·milar to some ''pseudo-Kltme·r" standing stone Buddhas of the Ayutltya. pe·riod now in the go-duwn of the Lopbur·i Museum.

22. E.g, headless stO?'Ie Bwlrlhtt of Duat·avaU style now i-n tlte Lopburi Mttsewn (see Oued'es, Rtlcueil des inscl'iptions du Siam,

I I, Pl. X I); also Duaravati lwonze statuettes in the collections of H.R.H. Prince Bhanubandlu,~- Yugala !J'Ild H.R.H. P·rince Olta­lermbol Yugala, Bangkok. Of. Lady Hm·isachamdra's statuette.

32 LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

.t. The position of the heurl shows some peculiarities. In

three of the seven statues, it leans a little forward. The origin of

this variation is obscurE.>. Rare in Siamese art, it is seen in some

Khmer stone sculptnre.23 It is common enough in Sinhalese,

Burmese, and Chinese art. No positive conclusions can he drawn

from this variatiou.

5. 'rhe faces of all seven statues are rather similar to one

anothet·, and very different from tlHJ faces of ordiua1·y Ayuthya

statues. The features are regular, relatively natnralistic, and the

cast of countenance seems mot·e skin to Indian or Indonesian than to Thai. In contt·ast to the ordinary c.mvenlionalized faces of the

Ayuthy:1 period- so ofte•1 squinting, supercilious, over- refined,

or merely expressionless -these are stwioos fact'S. The calm and

kindly downward gaze (•f the half-closed eyes, and the gentle smile

of the lips, convey an impt·eHsion of sincerity which is rarely en­

countered in Ayntbya art. It is true that this expression is not

rendered with equal success in all of the seven faces; hut some of

them are among the most expressive ever enconntered in the <ll't of

this period. (Figs. 3, 7, H, 10,11, 14.) Oompat·isons of facial feature and

facial expression in scnlptme are of necessity usually too subjective

to establish positive analogies; contl·asts a:·e more readily remarked.

We may say with some certainly, therefore, that the faces of these

seven Buddhas are dificJ·ent from ordinary Ayuthya art; and at the

same time observe, with somewhat less assurance, t.hat they recall

the two principal examples of the earlier school of Ohaiya-the

Buddha of Grahi and the gilded stone head- and more distantly

some bronr.e Buddhas of ''Sri Vijaya" art.

ti. The style of the headdress is unique. While there is nothing exceptional in the rl'prcsentation of the hair curls as small

round knobs arranged in a diaper pattern, nor in the fillet

separating hair ft·om forehead, the arraugement of lrdumala and

?Ytsm·i is remarkahh•. Among these srveral images, the shape of the

ketumnlrt varies considerably -from flattish to nearly hemispherical.

28. R.y., the !Jwldltrt v:Zlust1Yttecl in DeMay, 011. c:it., fig. 64,

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE A YUTHY A PERIOD 33

In five of them, the lcetumttlrr, is set upon the sknll slightly to the

rear of center. 'l'his is reminiscent of the earlier "School of Chai­

ya '' and of some bronze Liuddhas of "Sri Vi:iaya '' style. ln most

of the seven stone Buddhas, the plane of division between skull

and kcl tt·illal(l, and the plane of division between ket11111rtla and

rnsmi, are lilted forward, although th e ?'rtsmi itself iR upright.

'l'his secll.ls to he an in<liv idnal fancy. One of the stone 13n<ldhas

(Fig. 1±) has no hetumulu ; the ·rasmi, though sh:qleJ rather like

that of the others, is snperimposed direct ly upon the sknll , like that

o£ the BudJha of Grahi aud Lady Harisachandra's brnn~e.24 The

six oth ers have a hetnmrtla near ly like that of the gilded stone head

iu the National Museum bnt surmounted by a ?'asmi. l3nt the

most striking and exceptional feature of the headdress is the erect

conventionalized bodhi-leaf which fronts the 1·asmi in a l l seven of

the stone statues. In the one which has no lcetunial(l;, the leaf is

incised; in the others, it is brought out in bold relief in front of

the ntsm'i. Except for these seven stone Buddhas, the only instances

we know of the authentic use of the bodlli-leaf as an ornament for

the headdress are the Buddha of Grahi, Lady Har isachandra's

statuette, a!ld possib ly one of the three statuet.tes il lustl'ated in

Dupont's article . Its use in this manne•· is a unique feature of the

School of Cbaiya and its successor the 17th century atl'lt.r'?' of

Chaiya.25

24. It is not in fact clear whet he?' the aTt?:st -intended this

jeatw·e to be a rasmi, or a hai?'less ketumala. '1' here may have been

some contaminat-ion between the two notions.

25. Since the bodhi-leaj has subsequently discr,ppea1·ed jTom

the statuette illttstrated by Dupont, it will neve?' be known 1.ohet.he1 ·

it was authentic or not. As we have seen in the case of the gilded

stone head, 20th century embellishments of ttntique pieces with such

an ornament are not unknown . Other exnmples could be cited. As

jar as we can detenm:ne, the bodhi-lea.J un Ludy H a.risachand1·a's

statuette in authentic. In addition to the seven standing Buddhas,

two of the 150-odd seated stone Buddhas -in the oalle1·y of W at

Phra.Maha-That, Ohaiya, wh·ich we rhsmt'ssed u··ith n ln·-iej not-ice

PROPERTV OF THE SIAM SOIIETV

LIBRARY

34 ,LtJANG BORlBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

How did the 17th century rtlelicr of Ohaiya receive its

inspiration from the earlier School of Ohaiya and other more remote

sources?

We have already seen that the 17th century atdic1· proba­

bly does not represent the direct outgt·owlh of an unbroken tradi.

tion fron1 t.he earlier school. Of the 160-odd known examples of

this ttli'lhw, only seven present clear variations from the National

Style; and even upon these seven the stamp of the National Style

is vNy Htrong. It is only in special details, such as those enumerated

above>, that there are any substantial variations.

'l'he earlier l::lchool of Ohaiya, as we have seen, arose undet·

rnixe(l influences. not the least of which was the presence at Ohaiya

of a num her of admir~!d examples of more ancient styles. }"let· haps

the most, influent.ial of these we1·e Dvaravati.

Some of these ancient examples were certainly still available

at Ohaiya in the 17t.h century. 'ro them should be added the

productions of the earlier School of Ohaiya itself.26 The 17th

above -.have certain :pet.:ttt-ia?·it-it!8- 1' hey havt! the rasmi in the form

of a smooth knob or lvt'lts-bu.d, reminiscent of that of the seven

stand-ing Buddhas, but witlwu.t the bodhi-Zert.f, and SI.W1'0U'IUled at

the h11se by a ?'ing of smalllotus.petals. Of these two statue8, 01111

lws facilll features ?'em·iniscent of the seven standing Buddluts.

26. We have seen above tht.tl the illt?·oduction and popula­

rizing of the Natio.,-wl Style did not put an abr·upt end to em·l·ier

styles ·in vm·ious parts of Siam. .l·n the Sukhothai a1·ea, bronze

statue8 made long rtfter the disappea1'MlCt' of Sukhotlt(/'i as an £nde.

111mdent kingdom yet pt·ese?·ve with mot·c or less pe·rsislcnce the SlJir££

of classic Sukhothai art against the domination of the National

School. 1 t muy be aslmd whether a 11arallel did not occu1· iu l'eni·n­

sula·r Siam: i.e., whet}wr the 17th ccntw·y atelier of Chaiga was

not the .direct inhcn'tor of an ancient tnuUt·ion, g1·ad·ually yielding

to the encroachment of Ayuthya art. 1'he pa·rallel would be decep­

tive. In the ji1·st place, the style of Sttlchothai nnf.m·ed as a. p1·ime

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE A YUTHYA PERIOD 35

century artists of Chaiya, working mainly in the orthodox tradition

of the National Style, nevertheless permitted themselves certain

departures that. might he pleasing to local taste. The most drastic

of these departures seen in snch details as gesture, facial feature,

garments, and headdt·ess were inevitably guided by the presence of

older models that had long been objects of respect and admiration

in the neighborhood. The original statue of which the gilded stone

head illustrated by Dupont was a part was undoubtedly one of

them. So was the Buddha of Grahi. There may have been other

examples of the same school, important objects of veneration, which

h:we since disappeal'ed. Perhaps the type of sculpture represented

by the gilded stone head inspired the facial features, that represented

by the Buddha of Grahi inspired the pleated scarf and the bodhi­

leaf ornament, that rept·esented by the statuettes influenced certain

peculiarities of gestut·e. Other peculiarities of gesture, as well as

the wavy outline of the monastic r~be falling from the outstretched

forearm, seem to derive from Dvaravati art, bnt whether directly

or through the earlier School of Chaiya, ·we have no means of

knowing. Considering the importance of Ohaiya as a Buddhist

center over a long period of time, it seems likely that a greater

number of earlier models existed there in the 17th century than in

the 20 tb. It was pt·obably in the disorders which followed the

fall of Ayuthya to the Burmese in 1767, and which shook the king­

dom to its fonndation, that such ancient models temporarily or

permanently disappeared. It was then pet·haps that the original

body belonging to the gilded stone head was broken; the head itself

may have been lost, and not rediscovered until much later. The

component into the National Style ·in rt way that the Peninsular

styles could not possibly have done; 80 the N cttional Style is much

less alien to Sukhotha,i than to the Peninsulm·. ln the seco·nd place, a very great nwnber of br·onzes of the 8ukhotha·i clrtssic pe1·iod re­

mained ·in the Sukhothai area after it.~ conquest by Ayuthya; so

latm· local artists had a great cvr·pus of classic models tq pr·eserve the tr·ad'ition. At Ohaiya, the availctble models must have been less numerous and of a less homogeneo·us char·acte1·.

36 LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

Buddha of Grahi ma.y have been intentionally buried to preserve it

from theft, or more likely disappeared into the ground with the

crumbling of the shrine where it was housed.

'fhe unusual features of the seven stone Buddhas, therefore,

are most probably inspired by ancient models locally known and

respected. In addition to the two important specimens of the School

of Chaiya now known to us and others that have been lost, other

locally known images Dvaravati stone or bronze statues, and

bronzes of "Sri Vijaya" style served as models for one detail or

another.

We do not know whether the 17th century 1tteUer of

Chaiya produced any bronzes. It seems cet·tain that its work in

stone came to an end in the late 17th century, when the National

School turned away from the use of stone to easier techniques.

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE A YUTHY A PERIOD 37

III

NAKHON SRI-THAMMARAT

1. 'L'he "Ph1·a. Phutta SiMno ''.

At Nakhon Sl·i-Thammara.t, in a chapel in the precinct of

the former palace of the Chao, ~here is a famous bronze statue of

the Buddha, known as '' Phra Phntta Sibing" - the "Sinhalese

Buddha" (Fig. 18 ). It is locally believed to be the authentic clai­

mant of that title as against two other statues bearing the same

name, one now in the National Museum at Bangkok, and one in

Wat Pbra Sing at Chiengmai. The legendary history of the Phra

Phntta Sihing is as follows :

"In the Year of the Btlcldha 700 (1:-lti A.D.) t.be Sinhalese

King, wishing to see a likeness of the B11ddha, went to a monastery

and said to the monks : 'When He was upon earth, the Buddha

came three times to this island of Ceylon. Is there anyone now

alive who saw Him ? " The King of the Nagas suddenly appeared,

in the likeness uf a young man, and created an image of the Bud­

dha. The Sinhalese King summoned the finest artists, and com­

manded them to make an image in beeswax, identical to that created

by the King of the Nagas. From it they cast a statue, in an alloy

of gold, silver and tin. When it had been rubbed and polished,

the image was gleaming and bl'illiant like that of the living Buddha ...

In the Year of the Buddha 1800 ( 125li A.D.) Rocaraja, King of

Sukhothai, sailed down the Menam and came to Nakhon Sri-Tham­

marat. The King of that city told him of the mit·acles reported

concerning the Sinhalese statne. Rocaraja asked: 'Could I go

there?' 'No,' t•eplied the King of Nakbon, 'it is quite impossible,

since four powerful divinities guard the island of Ceylon.' •rhe

two kings therefore sent a messenge1· to Ceylon, and the Sinhalese

King gave him the statue, after worshipping it for seven days and

nights. The messenger put the statue on board a junk. 'l'he junk,

tossed about by the winds, struck a reef and was destroyed ; but

38 LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

the statue floated away on a ilhip's plank. 'l'bi·ough the power of

the King of the Nagas, the plank floated for three days and came

to shore near Nakhon Sri-'l'hammai·at. 1.'he King of Nakhon fonnd it, brought it home, and worshipped H. Then he sent a message to Hocaraja, announcing that the statue had been received. Rocaraja

went to Nakhon Sri-'l'hammarat, and took the statue back with him to Snkhothai, where he worshipped it.'''

The "Phra Phutta Sihing" which is now in the chapel of

the former Chao of Nakhon obviously cannot be the image referred to in the legend. Leaving aside the supernatural details, and the supposed date of its casting (which is fantastically untenable), this

statue has nothing of Sinhalese character about it. Of the three claimants to the title, the one at present in Bangkok is probably

closest to the type referred to in tho legend.2 Although the identi­fication of the "Sihing" of Nakhon with the image of the legend is

impossible, n~vertheless the fact that the legend has clung to it

suggests that certain details of the story may be correctly applicable to it.

These details are as follows :

First, the image of the legend (made by the eire perdue process, as were the "Sihing" of Nakhon and most of the bronzes of the Hinduized Orient) was composed of an "alloy of gold,

1. Abridged from Ooedhs, Documents sur l'histoit·e poli­tique et religiense du Laos occidental, BEFEO, vol. XXV, 192.5,

pp. 97-99.

2. Ootules,Musee National de Bangkok, p. 32. Le11l ay, op. cU., pp. 11.5 et seq. Oontains ''efe1·ences. See also Luang Bm·ibal Buribhand, Riiang Phra Phutta Sihing (in Siamese), reviewed in ,JSS, vol. XXIV, 1987, p, 168. .In the present article, the so­callecl "Phra Phutta 8ihing" of N akhon Sri-Thammat·at will continue to be refer·red to for con-venience as the "8ihing ", since, altho·ugh it is plainly rt misnomet·, the -name has become firmly established in local usage.

Fig. 18 ''Phra Phutta Sihing", Nakhun Sn"-Thamma-rat .

Height : 41 em.

Fig. 19. Bronze B1tddha, Collection of Mr. Charoen Lim1J;chati, Nakhon S1·i-Thammamt.

Height : 56 em.

Fig . 20. Rear Vieu: of Sarne , shon·ina inscription .

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE A YUTHY A PERIOD 39

silve1· and tin '•. 'l'he "Sihing '' of Nakhon, lila~ many Chiengsaon

images is brassy in appeat•ance. 'l'he alloy might well be' thonghl

to contain gold and silver.3

Second, the identification of the image with Cey lou may

refer to t.he influence of Sinhalese Buddhism.4

'l'hird, the supposed date of the arrival of the image at

Nakhon suggests that the "Sihing" was eithe1· malle o1· importc1l at

that time. 'l'he histm·ically-known relations and rivalries hetween

King Tiocaraja t\Ud this mid-13th century King of Nakhnu lt•nd

some colot· to the probability. Nakhon at this time was entering

the orhit of the hegemony of 8ukhothai ; and loss than a half­

eent.ury later King Ham Kharnhaeng of Sukhothn.i claimed Nakholl

afl a part of his tel'l'itories.5 'l'his hegemony of Snkbothai over

Nakhon was inherited by the Kings of Ayuthya.

While we are compelled to reject. the idea that the "Sihing"

of Nakhon was made in Ceylon, we ad.rnit the possibility that the

8. 'L' he que.~Non of the alloys used is a compl1'mt.ed one, tlllu

mnnot lit! sat·isfacloril!l 1't!Solued ll'ithotti chenl'iml awtlysis.

d1:sr:1t.qs·iun of I h·i.~ })()int, see Bernnt K mn2li'1'S, 'I' he Brom;es of N alaJLda

and Hindu-Javanese Art, Leydt'JI., 1933, J!. 13. 'J'he JiO£nt to which

we 1'8ft1' at jJJ'I'Seut v·s not the ?'eal cornposv'tion of the nwtrtl hut mere­

ly the bi'!IS8Y appl'fl ram·e wh·ich datrrtt'lt•1'-izes it, in uommon 11'v'th

manu ollwr bron::·r·.~ .f1'0iil N({,klwn a8 UJell f/S many Oh£onusaf'ol/.

lwon.z·tl.

4. 'l'he Kinrt of Nrtkhon S?"f'.'J'hanmuwat J'r.fe?"!'r•rl to ll'us

Kv:ng Ohr~rulrabhann who ftl.'·iCil ·iumrlerl Ceylon, supposedly fo?' the

]ntrp081' of o/!ta•in·ing Bu.r/dhis/. relics. 8er• Ldf ay, loc. dt.; Cor•di~s, , Les Etats hindonises, 'Ji '1'· 310-811; .ZJfen;rl·i8, '!'he Ea1·y Histo1·y of

Ceylon, Oalcultrt, W41i, Jl. !)9. Kinu H.ocr!I'Ct)a is ({/10fhel' nu.me fur K·ing ,...,.1'1. lttdradif!fa of Suklwflul'i, fa.iluw of King Ham A.-luan­

hal"'lg. . , 5. Coerh.~. Les EtatH, Ji. 311, 71. 84S.

40 LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

legend may provide a clue as to the date of the "Sihing's" manu­

facture or arrival at N akhon- namely, a Lout the middle of the

1 :3th century.

Having passed this summary judgment on the applicability

of the legend to the "Sihing ", let us see what is to he learned

from an examination of the image itself. In its general style, it

is closely analogous to the Chiengsaen bronzE'S of the extreme north

of Siam. It has many details in common with them. 'l'he legs are

crossed. with both soles of the feet tmncd up and visible ( vnjra­

sana); the body is plump, wit.h an almost. feminine breast, and a

rather slim waist ; the face is a roundish oval ( not the elongated

oval of the Snkhothai Buddhas); the eyebrows are arched, and the

nose curved; the hands are plump, with graceful sinuous fingers;

the cmls are large, and there is no fillet separat.ing hair from fore­

head; the ketumallt is surmounted by a smooth ?'rtsm·i in the form

of a lotus-bud; and the seal'£, falling uvet· the left shoulder, stops

above the nipple.

Since the "Sihing" of .Nakhon, both in general aspect and

in the specific details 1mumerated, is so strongly reminiscent of the

Chiengsaen type, we must briefly examine the ot·igin of the latter.

It arose in the extreme north of Siam, at an uncertain date

-but presumably a little before the middle of 13th century, when

the Thai had established their hegemony in the north and were

already penetrating into Peninsular Siam. 'l'he probable date of

the rise of the Chiengt!aen School, therofo1·P, is slightly earlier than

the legendary date of thE' arrival of the "Sihing" at Nakhon.6

6. The beginning date of the OMengsaen 8'chool is uncer­tain. It may possibly have been pr·ior to the 13th centu,ry, as suggested by LeMley (op. cit., pp. 15, 97 et seq.) Bronzes of this Ohiengsaen type were atill beitt(J made as late as the end of the 15th centm·y (e.g., bronze Buddha, seated 81'oss-legged, now in the Sal((, of

W at Benchamabophit, Bangkok, bearing an inscription with a date equivalent to A.D. 1491.) This was well after· another style of

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE A YUTHY A PERIOD 41

In discussing the Ol'igins of the Ohiengsaen style, Ooedt'ls

says: ''The Indian prototype of the Ohiengsaen images is to be

found in the a1·t of Magadha. of the Pala period ( 8-12 th centuries).

'l'he prestige of the University of Nalanda at this time popularized

the fornmlas of this art in the Buddhist countries of Greater

India. -In view oi the facts of history, geography, and chronology,

it must be assumed that the influence of the P01la School on northern

Siam, rathe1· than being a direct one, was exercised c1·a Bnnna.

Buddha 1:maye hrtd het~n introduced rtnd become Jiopulm· in tlw nor/h.

'J'he new stylt~, ccnterinu al 0 h·iM~gmai, -is k·nozun by various nmn(!S.

'/'he ~tppellrtlion used by the Danglwlc National 211nsemn is "Later

0 hieugsaen ••; ]Jerhaps the most c01Tect a,uz cas1:esl 1lll11lt< for ·it -is

"J'he Chiengmai School '•. Ch-iengm.a1: wa8 fattndtJd •in 1!296, a'/111

f·rom the 14th centm·y onwm·d it was the most ·impo?'lllnl city ill

Northern Siam. 'J'lw 0 Menomrt:i style of scul ptw·e probably arose

in the late 14th century. A good 11111"1l!/ cJ.'rtmplfJS drtlerl £11 lite 15th

rtJtd 16lh cenlttl'ies e.ct"sl. It ·is quite d?/j'erenf from t lw 0 lt-ir'il(/8!1 r'n

style, and is milch t'njluencecl b!f 8-ukhothrti. Lacking both flit~ plttiii[J

l1t.7:ur-iousness of the Ohienosaen School rmd the gnu:e of tlte ~"'u!dw­

thai S choul, it is /I.S/l(({l!f markNl by 11. artaiu 1'1.{/t.dity u.f 11 t l-it wlr•

(1,-iid druness oj' morlcll-in.u. 'l'lu· pedestal is often ajoure (/,/11/ rlr·­

cO?·ated with lotus petals; the legs an: snper·impused one upun lht

other, 9'tllhe1' than rTossul; the scarf ·is retn·t~scnted 118 11 lour! 8ill(!lt•

fold of cloth, with rt squat·e end bt•ai'i?I(J rt r·liarr((''''l'-islic iUSI'I"if,ed

onwment; the rasmi t's usw!.lly -i9• lhr' form of 11 convenHOIIill-iz·wl

jia.me ornament SIJ.IUtre in cross-section. ( ~..,, ee LcJ11 uy, o p. cit., p p.

129-134.) Bemuse of the 1:nsc1··iptions r-iled ((.bo1•e, it camwf ht~

doubted that the Ohiengsatm and the Oh-icnunun: typt?, so d·dt'erenl

from each othe'l·, co.ext:.sted in some degt·ee rt.nd for some lime in llir•

sa,me reg-ion. On the wholt<, hon·ever, it semns ?'eSO·II((ble to w·cr•pt jo1·

the chitJf fimt1'i8hing of the (ea1'ly) Ohiengsae,,, Sdwol the dalr•s

proposed by Ooedi!s (Le Mnsee National de Bangkol{, pp. 28 l'lscq.),

namely the 13th and 14th centzwics, and fot· that of the 0 hiengmrti

School the 15th and succeeding centuries. llowel'!!'l', this diltino

may be later· 1t'J!Set by the d-iscovery of olht•r dat,•d 1·muur·s.

42 LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

Burma bn.d served as a natural link with India for the Thai while

they were established in the kingdom of Nan-chao in Yunnan. And

the sculpture of Burma during the period of Pagan derived from

the Pala School of India." 7

What other underlying influences contributed to the Chieng­

saen style- echoes of Dvaravati and Khmet•, or of the littl~-lmown art of Nan-chao itself- cannot easily be dt•termined. But the Pala

influence is the dominant one.8

The passage just quoted from Coedes continues: "A curious

fact, whi.ch may be noted in passing, is that of all the images found

on Siamese soil it is precisely those from the neighhorhood of Nakhon

S•·i-'rhammarat, i.e. f•·om the region farthest. from Chiengsaen, that

show the strongest resemblance to those ft·om the extreme north of

Riarn. These resemblances are easily explained by a common ori­

gin. An examination of the votive tablets found in the caves of

the Peninsula shows clearly t.hat the type of Buddha depicted is

closely allied to the Magadban type of the Pala period. It is not

therefore smprising to find at Nakhon Sl'i-Thammarat, at tht• begin­

ning of the Thai occupation, images t•ecalling those of Chieugsaen

in many details.'' 9

Nalanda was the famous monastery and university in

Biha•·, India, which was the center of the Mahayanist world in the

centuries preceding the downfall of 13nddhism in India }H·oper. As

7. Coedes, Le Musee National de Bangkok, 11. 31.

8. LeMay, op. cit., 11p. 97-108. Contains ?'efennces. Ji'm·

au illuminating d·iscussion of the art of Nan-chao, seB Chapin, Yunna.nese images of Avalokitesvara. H arvrtrd Journal of Asiatic StnditlS, August, 1944, 11. 1.11.

9. Pm·t of this passage is quoted by LeMay, op. cit,. p. 47,

but without specific ?'eferetwe to the "Sihing" type of N aklwn S•ri­

'l'lunumm·at . . Of. Coedes, Tablettes votives, }!)f.udes Asiatiques E Jj' l!JU, I (translated into English, Siamese Votives Tablets, J S S,

Vol. XX, 1926, Part I.)

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE AYUTHYA PERIOD 43

early as the 7th century it was attracting pilgrims, especially

scholat·a, from the entit·e Buddhist world, and continued to do so

through the 1:2th century. During its golden ag61, Nalanda formed

part of the realm of the Pala kings of Bengal, and they were its

patrons. The founder of tho Pala 1lynasty t•eigned in the 8th

centur·y ; the latet· art of Nalanda helongs to the art of the Pala

Jijmpire. The Pala art of Nalanda pi'Ofounuly influenced lands as

widespt·ead as Sri Vijaya and Java to the southeast, Burma to the

east, Nepal and Tibet to the not·t.h. 10

This influence was st.yllstic as well as iconographic. Stylis­

tically, the at·t of the Pala School is of high technical accomplish­

ment, elegant and even modish in design. Although it produced

stone sculptUI·e, the bronzes are more characteristic as even the

stone carving approximates to metal work. Everything is conceived

in clear outlines, and there is no true modelling comparable to the

carliet· Indian Schools.11

One of the means by which Pala art in general, and the University of Nalanda in pal'ticular, influenced Siam was votive

tablets, in Siamesfl called '' Phra Phim.'' Votive tablets have been

exceedingly popular in Siam since the earliest time!". Made most

commonly of clay, often gilded, the votive tablets of Siam vary

from t.he size of a threepenny bit to that of a five-pound note and

larger. They have been produced in prodigious quantities. Some

Buddhist monks spent the gt·eatei' part of their lives in the mass

production of such images from metal ot• clay moulds. They were

purchased by the faithful and presented to a Wat as an act of rner·it, or kept in t.he home as objects of veneration, or worn as amulets.

On the sub:ject of Phra Phim, Ooedes remarks: ''The custom

of making small holy images hy means of a mould or die appears to

10. Bernet A. em pers, qp. cU., p p. 1-25 pa.~s£rn.

11. Ooomaraswarny, History of Indian and Indonesian Art.,

New York, Leipzig, a.nd London, 1927, pp. 113-114. We use the term "Pala style" in rt b1·ond sense, to ,:nclttde the Sen a school. See

Ooomara.swamy, op. cit., p. 106.

44 LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

he exclnsi vely Buddhist. I cannot recollect that Brahmanic images

made by such processes have ever been record<?d, whilst, on the contrary, such imprints have been found on p1·actically every Bud·

dhist site from the Northwest provinces of India and the Chinese

province of Ho-nan, to the caves of the Malay Peninsula and the

shores of Annam." These images probably originated as souvenirs of pilgrimages to holy places. "Many of these images convey. the

impression that they represent, not the Buddha generally, but a particula•· Buddha, a certain definite statue in a particular temple or place. Such is clearly the case in respect of certain imprints re­

p•·esentiug the Buddha as seated under u pyramidal towe1·, one of

which, au excellent specimen and practically identical with those found in the neighborhood of Buddhagaya, has been discovered in

Siam near Ohaiya. This storied tower ni1der which the Master is shown seated in the attitude of teaching, is evidently the tower of Buddhagaya, and it is practically certain that this Phra Phim of

Ohaiya, which, moreover, is distinctly of Indian manufactlll'e, came f1·om that celebrated shrine.

" But Phra Phim must have ceased at an early date to be regarded merely as souvenirs. With the development of a profound veneration for images, t.he act of making a statue of the Buddha or other figure symbolic of the religion bad long been established as a

source of merit. But to cast a bronze image or carve a statue of wood or stone was not. within the reach of most people, and poor persons desirous of acquiring merit to assure their rebirth under

more prosperous conditions, found in the impression of an effigy

npon a lump of potter's clay, the meaus of accumulating such merit

without the assistance of superior intelligence or wealth. Those who had t.he desire and the leisnre to do so might make a very large number of such impressions, and it seems possible that the great deposits of tablets bearing the effigy of the Buddha that have been

found in the caves of the Malay Peninsula may represent the labor of hermits who passed many years of their lives in thus acquiring merit."

SCULPTURE OF SrAM IN THE AYUTHYA PERIOD 45

"'l'hese humble images gradually assume in our eyes the

aspect of serious implements of religious pt•opaganda... 'l'heir sub­ject or their inscribed formula imparted to them a proselytizing virtue, which in time became indistinguishable from magic, this last the sole attribute that has snrvived in the am uleta familiar to us today."12

Not only such tablets, hut also the moulds from which they were made, were imported f1·om India in quantity. Many of them of Pala type, identifiable with Nalanrla, or Budrlhagaya, or other

sacred places in Magarlha have been found in Siam, particularly

Peninsnlar Siam. Huge numbers of imitations were locally made,

and in time imitation gave way to adaptation.

At the end of the 12th centut·y, Bihar was conquered by the

Muslims, the city of Bihar itsolf being captured by a 'l'urki free-lance MohitnlllH'dan wit.h a pal'l.y of 200 horsem<'n. "It was discovored," says a contemporary Amb historian, ''that the whole of that fortress

and city was a college, and in 1 he Hindi tougue they call a college

Bihar.'' Many of the monks were massacred in the first heat of the assault; those who sut·vived fled to Tib<'t, Nepal, and the main­

land and i~:~lands of Southeast Asia.'3

The influence of Nalauda art overseas, strong during the lifetime of the university, was perhaps even more int£'nse im-.

mediately after the univet·sity pel'ished. The flight of the monks, scholars, and at·tists to the north, east, and southeast from Nalanda when the university was destt·oyed brought with it a wave of

influence which recalls, in a lesser degt·ee, the effect of the flight of the learned men to Italy fl·om Byzantium when the latter fell to

the Tlll'kB in 1453.14

12. Ooedes, Siamese Votive 'l'ablets, loc. cit., :J.J p. 8-6.

18. Encyclopaedia Britannictt, 11th edition, vol. a, 11. 655

(s.v. "Behar·'').

14. In discussir1g the 1·ise of the Ohiengsaen style, LeMay (op, cit., p. 99) gives due c·redit to the inftue·nce of refugee Buddhists

46 LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

'!'he tlight of the refugees ft•om N alanda at the very l'lld of

the 12th century preceded by only a short time the probable date

of the 1hst appearance of the Chiengsaen bronzes of Northern Siam.

in fact, not much more than the time-lag that would be necessary

for the refugees to have established themselves in their new homes

and begun tc.i exercise their artistic influence. And the supposed

date of the art·ival of the '' Sihing " at Nakhon Sri-'J'hilmmarat was

only a little later. Although, as we have seen, Pala art had long

exercised a general influence in Burma and Indonesia, the emer­

gence of a new and specifie type of bronze image of the Buddha

more or less simultaneously in northern Siam and the Peninsula,

under strong Pala influence, took place just aj/1!1' Buddhist Pala art

in India proper was bt·ougbt to an end by the Muslim conquest of

Bihar and Bengal.

Hero a puzzling question at·ises. 'J'he Buddhism of Nalauda

waa chiefly Mahayana, as was that of Sri Vijaya and presumably

that of the Thai of Nan-chao. But the 13th century sculpture of

Chiengsaen and of Nakhon St·i-Thammarat is apparently Hinayana.

Although the Hinnyana Buddhism of the kingdom of Dvaravati and

its offshoots remained a deep undPrlying influence, the adoption of

Hinayana Buddhism by the 'l'hai in the lath century is generally

attributed to the influence of Ceylon m:a Nakhon Sri-Thammarat..

'l'his influence is firmly established in the case of Snkhothai, and

is reflected in Sukhothai art.. In the case of Chiengsaen, the reli­

gious influence of Ceylon may have existed, but. it is not visible in

the cal'ly Chiengsaen bronzes. Similarly, the influence of Ceylon

on the religion of Nakhon Sri-Thammarat is echoed in the legend quoted above and in other sources, but, as we have seen, there is nothing Sinhalese about the "Sihing" of Nakhon. Both the Chieng­

saen bronzes and the "Sihing" seem to derive most directly from a

f'rom N orther·n lnd1:a, but places this influence about n ce·ntury eltrlier, when the persecution. of the Buddhists in N orthe1··n India

had already sla1·lcd.

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE A YUTHY A PERIOD 47

certain type of Pala bronze imago of the Buddha, seated in ?'a ,ir11 -

sana and with right hand pel·forming the gesture of bhmni8pa1·sa

( Marat··i.illya ).15 Whether this type of Buddha-image, which

was being made in Bengal in the 12th century 01· somewhat before,

and was mot·c m· less associated with Nalauda, can be specifically

denominated either Mahayana or Hinayana, we are unable to say:

however, it seems not to have any iconographical details that ex­

clude t.he possibility of its being Hinayana.

This Bengal typo became known in Siam through the

medium of votive tahlots, and possibly hronze images as well. A

typo of votive tablet, imp<Hted f1·om Nalanda or based on Nalanda

models, rcpresent.ing the Buddha seated with eros sed legs ( 1'rt ,;./'(/.

smut), and with right hand performing the gestnl'e of ~liru·a,•i,illlf(f,

has heen found in considerable quautity in Siam, particularly in

the Peninsnla. In addition to votive tablets. it. seems logical to

snppose that larger imag~s of Pala type in bronze 01· !:!lone Wt•re also

importf.'d.76 The fact that few or none arC' now to be seen in

15. E,rflmples of this type are li lwonze JJwldh(/8 iu tlw

Ind·ian 111ttsenm, Cu.tcutl11, 8142, 8J.J3, 8144, 8145, 81·5.'3, bell?·inu lhl'

label: •· Jfetal l mages from Rengal, 7-12 century." Tlll'lf 1/1'1' suid

by Dr·. &iva 11{ antyrtnrt ._<.;,' tm to ha,·r: come fnnn Puha~·J!lti', mnl to

date f•J·om tlw I Itlt oT 12th tentw·y. All .fi.V£1 rtre seated iu vah·asana

and perfonn the geslwl'e of Lhnmisparm with llw rirtht hand, unrl

all a1·e str·ikoinyly nmliniscent of 0 hienusum bronzes and of the

"Sihing'' of N akhon. But unlike the Chiengsaen bronzes, they Ita l't

the. pleated scm·.f S'imilar to the "8iht'ng", aml 11la£n pedestal.

16. At least ont! image of Palct manu.facttwe (thouoh nut

the seated type which we have been discussing) e.n'sls ·in Northern

Siam at!d has been thtJ1'e for a long time, although the date and

manner of £is arrival m·e U'llknou·n. This is the "Pll?'a Silu" fr·mlt

Ruddhagaya, now at tV at C hiengma·n, C' hiengmai. See Le.ii'I ay, o J!.

cit., p. 104 and fig. 119. Of. Hutch-inson, Sacred Images in Ohieng­

mai, .TSS, vol. X.l.Vlll, 198.5. par·t II.

48 LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

the Malay Peuinsnla may pt>rhaps be attributed to more recent re-exports to India.17

We may conclude, therefore, that the Chiengsaen bronzes

and the "Sihing" of Nakhon hoth derive from the late Pal a art of

Bengal, eithet· by dit·ect imitation or from memory aided hy "Phra

Phim ". 'l'he '' Sihing •' and some of the Chiengsaen bi'Onr.es

display certain faults of execution which make them look slightly

'' ont of drawing", and snggest t.hat they are based on the imitation ol' very small statuettes or "Phra Phim"

Let us now try to dednco t.he relationship between the

"Silting" and the Chiengsaen hrom:es. Did one derive from tho

other, or did each derive independently from the Pala? We have

alrv:tdy noted the preponderant similarities between the '' Sihing"

and the Chietlgsaen bronzes ; but the "Sihing" hat> some details that serve to distinguish it.

The first is the face with its extreme roundness; wl1ile

the Chiengsaen images have round faces in com pari son to the

.Khmet· ot' Sukhothai types, the roundness is found in a really exaggt•ratrd form in the "Silting"; the "Silting" also has a certain

pecnliarit.y of facial featme that is a little different from Chit•ngsaen.

A second diffet·ence is in the scarf over the left shoulder.

In Chie-ngsaen images, the scarf is represented as a single fold of

clollt. Usually it is short., falling only to a point a litt.le above

the left nipple, and ending in a single notched pattern, which some­

times gives the bir.ane effect of a pair of pinchers about to seize the

nipple. There arc some variations in the form of scarf, bnt in any

case it is uever pleated. In the" Sihing" of Nakhon, the scarf is

short, bnt is represented as a piece of cloth in several pleats or

folds, some of which can he seen iu profile t~nd some as projecting ends.

17. In Jllalaya, when ancient images ,.u·e found in the ,:u11r.~~~ of lin drerlyinu, lhey ((re of leu smuggled out of the cou·/ltl'/1

lu l111h11, 11'/te?·e t hi' if commaml a umch h·igh01· t:aslt 1·alue.

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE AYUTHYA PERIOD 49

'fhis is the most ol.Jvions peculiarity of the "Sihing '' of

Nakhon. As we hav e noted in an earlier section, th e pl eated scarf

is a m ost exce pt ional feature for Buddha statues in Siam. We have

already seen it, in a somewhat different form, in several images of

the School of Chaiya and of th e later 17th- century nteli,•1' of

Chaiya, bu t th ese are practica lly the only examples of scnlptnn· in

Siam- other than t he "Sihing" type of Nakhon - in wl 1i<.: h t lti s

feature appeat'i:i. In other words, in Si-amese ~;cu lpture , it s prev :t­

lence is confine(\ to Penin sular Siam . Whether this ii:l me1·e coin ci­

dence, an<i whether t he different form of th e pleated scarf of t lw

Chaiya images cn.u properly be relateJ to that of thc Nakholl

"Sihing" type, is not cloar . In Pal a sculpture, the pleated r::carf

was a co nnn on featnre, and it was frequ ently adopted hy th e P:!.l:1

derivat iv es in Neva!, 'l'il1et, and Burma, :md sometinJPS in ' 'S r i

Vijaya" art. 78

18. liJ.{J. , unm .z·c stu/ndte of the B uddha, srutt•d ·in vajms:1.11:1.

on lot-us tlwO'Iw, J1·om Sum((l·J'a ( 10-12th century? ) now in lhl' 1 n ­

tl-isch Institut, Amste ,·d11m. SnueJ'It.lt:.xmnpl,:s of thu plcolcrl sca;f

on H·indu-J rtvrtnt•se u1·omcs W"e to be seen at tlw Hi.iksmiiS!:I/111 l'oo, ·

Vollrcnkwule, L e!lden . 1! 1'./lwlfl ll e:r.IIIIIJJlr: of the 18th r:e-nlit ·l'.ff •i1 1

odt-cop[Jer -is to lJ,: sewn at the l' ·ir-to ,·ia unrl A lhm·t J!nseu m , /,onrlun.

An e:rampfo llf lilt: pleated -~carj of the Intl·ian Pl/.lrt .~lyle -it si!l f

may ur: sem~ in (/. lm·ge SNt l i!rl Bwlrlha -in shale, j-l'llm E~:·Jl{jlll. (J J-il/(1/ '

Sehoul), c. 11th cen t-wry, in th e Victor-ia uwL Allied .li'lf.Set/111 .

Among the ve·,·y ·ran: sculptnTes of S ·iam havit t(f a Jilea tt:(l smrf o/hvr

than those desc1·i!Jed in I he te.1:t awl ·in note 1 o oj S ed-iun I I 11 '1' JJWff

c-ite two. (a) A sma ll statue of the Huddha in a cltat>ct u.t !Joi

Suthep, n ea·r C hiengma i. Th e stat-ue -is seatt!rl n·i /:h aossed {,,·us 1111

a lotus throne of en·rly Ohienosaen style. It hn. s -u?UleJ'{Ju n r· r:O JI S-irh:r­

a ule altnrril•ion ( o£ncl-uding th e 'fJUSiti0'/1. of /he 1"ighl hawl ), llll!f 1/'1!

cannot say whelhe1' the Jilenled scarf 'is o·ro£ginul or ·1-wl. (b) Hew/

and !Just of lJJ'rmz n Buddha ·in Uw Lam.ph·w1 .M usenm. '1' his stat ue

is oj the style of the Ayuthy((. JJer-iod and so jar as 11 'P. knOll' its

pruvenrm ce is unknown. I n Siamese scttlJJturc, the pleated sca1'.f

is almost en t·h·ely wnfined to tl!i! few stat'ues tee lta1'r' enwnua terl;

50 LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

There is another difference- though a rather negative one

-between the "Sihing '' of Nakhon and the Chiengsaen type. The

latte1· in most. cases sits on a seat decorated with lotus petals;

the "Sihiug" of Nakhon sits on a plain and inconspicuous seat.

This factor, however, is inconclusive, as the "~ihing" may have

undergone later modifications.

Despite these differences (of which the pleated scarf i::; the

most i:lti·iking ), the "Sihing" of Nakhon is closer in style to

Chiengsaerr art. thau to anything else, ir;1cluding its Pala prototypes.

Since Chiengsaen art is rt~presented by a numerous series of })['onzes,

and since, as we shall see in thl>l next sub-section, t.he "Sibing" of

Nakhon is apparently a unique example of its type in the Nal{l10ll

region in the 13th century, it is tempting to suppose that the

"Sihing '' is actually a specimen of the Chiengsaen I:!Chool- though

rather an except.iona l one- made in the Chiengsaen region in the

13th century, and brought to Nakhon Sri-'fbammarat under cir­

cumstances which in subsequent history became confused with the

story of the '' real Sib ing ". The political and cultural relations

between N akhon Sri-'l:bammarat and the Thai of Sukhothai in the

mid-lath century at·e well-known, and a.re illustt·ate>d in the legend

quoted ahove. These facts, however, other than indieating tho

existence of relations between the north and the south, are not

very helvfnl in estahli8hing the origin of the " Sihing" of N akhon,

which has no stylistic connection with the school of Sukhothai.

On the other hand, there is the possibility that the Chieng­

saen School was influenced by the "Sihing" of N!!>khon. In sorue

respectR- chidly the pleated scarf- the '' Sihing '' of Nakhou is

closer to the Bengali prototypes than are the Chiengsaen bronzes.

Sinhalese Hinayana Buddhism perhaps came to Chiengsaen by the

but ·it is also trw:ectble in a. mtml~e~· uf vot£ve tablets, uf l'ala ur"ig·in

or injlwmce, found .;n SitNII. As these tablet8 are usually srnall,

rtnd the c:ucut·ion of s~tch detm:ls as the sca.r'f 'l'rttlw·l' vag·ue, tlt·is

feature in tlw tablets cannot IJI! positively 1·elated to either the Olud­

ya ty11e 01' the N rtldwn typ11 tu the tJXcl?ts·ion of the othe?',

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE A YUTHY A PERIOD 51

sanH• route as it came to Snkhotbai, that is, /'i(( Nakbon Sri-Tham­

rnamt; and il is possible that the conveyol's of this religious doctrine,

making a relay at Nakhon in their travel to Ohicmgsaen, picked up

a taste for the "Sihing" as an appropriate type, but that when this

ideal was transported to Ohiengsaen it was modified in certain res­

i)ects, including the form of the scarf. Another passage in the

legend quoted above outlines the later travels of the "Sihiug ",

which included a sojourn at Ohiengsaen. But the date of this

sojourn is considerably later. On the whole, chronological difficul­

ties seem to eliminate the possibility that the Ohiengsaen bronzes

could have derived from the "Silting" of Nakhon.

On stylistic grounds, it seems uece~sary to date tho "8ihing''

of NakLon in the 1:\th centnry .79 Its confusion with the '·authen­

tic" Silting image of the l0geud !!Uggesti:l that it. was mad<', or

al'l'ived, in Nakhon Sri-'l'hammat•at about tho middle of that century.·

But whether it was an importation ft•om Ohiengsaen, whether it

was made locally under the direct. influence of Ohieugsaen art, or

whethet· it was made locally under t.he same major influences that

forlllerl the Ohiengsaen style, are <Jnestions that cannot be answet·ed.

Whatever its origin, this image exercised a very remarkable

inHnence on the subsequent art of Nakhon Sri-Thammarat .

. '!. Othel' Nrtlchon Sri-'l'ltwiWI.!trat Statues uf the "Silting'' Type

There exist several score, possibly several hundred, bronze

images of the Buddha which reproduce more or less faithfully the

chief pec~1liarities of the "Sihing '' of Nakhon: legs crossed, with

both soles turned up and visible; right hand performing the gesture of M anwijayn ; more or less round face ; rasmi in general form

19. Since th?'s dnl'ing is based la?·gely on (t com.par'·Json

w·ith Oltiengsaen 1:mages, ·it 1:s subject to the sctme 'l'ese·rve wh·ieh WI'

have noted above in regrwd to tlte dating uf that school. (See above,

N ot;e 6 of t}t,;s section.)

52 LUANG BORIBAL Alii"D A.B. GRISWOLD

of a lotus-bud; scarf in multiple pleat.s falling over the left shoul­der and stopping above t.he left nipple. ( Figs. 19, 21, 22, 2:3, 24, 25,

26, 27. ) A fair proportion of them is still to be found at N akhon

St·i-Thammarat, in the Museum of Wat Maha-That., in other Wats,

and in private collections. The .remainder, in the National Museum at Bangkok, and in other museums and private collections, have nearly all a traceable history of p1·ovtmanco from Nakhon Sri-Tham­marat. These bronzes, therefore, are correctly enough described as belonging to "The School of N akhon Sri-•rhammarat •'.

How did this school arise and when did it flourish?

If tho "Sihing '' was really made at N akhon Sri-Tliammara.t, it might he Sllpposed that it was not an isolated example, but was

simply one - t.he most famous- of a whole group of brom:es made

in the same region and at the same period, constituting a. school

which was contemporary with, and paralleled, the Chiengsaen

School, and which continued to develop for several centuries

thereafter. However, even aside from the difficulty of heing cer­

tain that the "Sihing '' was made at Nakhon, such a theory would

he hard· to support on the basis of other available examples. While

the "Sihing" can probably be dated in the 13th century, the other available images of the same type appear to have been made con­

siderably later- namely, in the Ayuthya pet·iod.

Asicle from their main peculiarities, which are listed above

awl are sufficient to distinguish them clearly from all other schools, these statues vary a good deal among themselves. The shape of the face, the facial expression, the exact form of the rrtsmi, the

type of curls, the general aspect of the hody, the exact form of the pleated scarf, and the form of throne or pedestal, display consider­able diversity, Some of them have the four fingers of the hand of equal length- a feature said to be derived from Ceylon and often adopted in t.he sculpture of Sukhothai.

On the basis of pedestal, ornament, o1anner of representing hair and facial features, or sculptural technique, most of these

Fig. 21. Bronze Bnddha, Nation11l

Mnsenm. Brt rzgkok. Height : 50 em.

Fig. 23. 1-Jronze B1tddha, Vihnm of Waf. Benchamllbophit, Hangkok.

Height : 72 em.

Fig. 22. Branz" 11nddha, Natio11n.l

Mnseum, Fiangkok. Height : 60 em.

Fig, 24 . bronze Bnddha, Lopbnn Mnse1tm .

Height : 37 em.

Fig. 25. B1·om:e Buddha, Collection

of Lady Clute 8wnal((,

S nkha pa1·rt, Nrddwn 8 ri.

'Phamnw.rnt. Height : 38 em.

Fig. 26. Bronze Buddha, W at

111 oh:t.-1' hat, Nnkho11

~·?·"i - '1' hwnmarnt. Height : 88 em.

Fig. 27. Bronze Budrlhrt, Collf•ction of {,([dy

Chne S 11/lla lrt. S , f.1:;lta 1Jrtrrt, Nuklwn

,I,' ri- '1' hmnm:n·rt I.

Height : 44 em.

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE A YUTHY A PERIOD 53

statues can be datec'l in the Ayuthya periocl.20 The only one known

to us that hears an inscription (Figs. 19 & 20) is dated 1G94.

It seems most likely that t.he "Sihing", whether cast locally

ot• brought ft·om elsewhere, is a unique example of its pel'iod at

Nakhon St·i-'fhammarat, and that the other bronzes we are consider­

ing are more or less direct imitations made between the late 14th

and the late 17th century. This theory seems the more plausible

when we consider the wording of the inscription on the bronze we

have just mentioned :

''On Saturday, the 11th day of the Waniug Moon of the

Eighth Lunar Month, in the Year of the Bull, B.E. 2237 (A.D.1694), Luang Phra Phaeng ordered this Phra Phutta Sihing to be cast, in

Wat Sarayon Nitharam." (Fig. 20)

Note that the donor" ordered this Plwa l'lmtta Hih:ing to

be cast.." The implication is, that the " Sihing" type constituted a

special, popular, and respected category, which it was the custom

for donors to imitate.

This point, of c01use, cannot he finally settled until a much

more cothplete inventory of <'Xisting bronzes of the type of the

"Sihing •' of N akhon Sri-'fhammarat has been made, and the various

examples of the series carefully comparerl with one another and

with datable examples of other contemporary schools. Such com­

parisons are outside the scope of the present article.

Even if it is later determined that some of these images are

actually contemporary with the "Sihing ", it is certain that the

great majo1·ity of them date from the Ayuthya period. 'fheir most

noticeable characteristics, however, are quite at variance with the

ordinary traditions of the National Style. Two of these characteris­

tics- the legs crossed with soles turned up, and the type of 'rrtsmi -are

20. 1'he sillumelttJ of .~onw uf lite petlcstrtls (e.g., Figs. 21, 2o,

26) c'tjirst glance suygests U -1'1ton{f; but with one exception (F?:y. 26)

their rathe'r fus.~y decm·ation bet·rays a lfl.ter date. Most of the

.'Pedeslttl.~ are drm·ly of the Ayuthya period.

54 LUANG BORIB!\L AND A.B. GRISWOLD

ral'.l:l in ordinary Ayuthya art. A t.hinl chamcterit;tic- the round

face- generally hut not always fonnrl in the statues we are discns­

sing, is rare in ordinary Aynthya art, which ten('ls toward the oval

or even the exaggeratedly elongated face. The fomth and most

outstanding characteristic- the pleated scarf- is practically never

encountered iu the art of the National School outside of the Penin­

sular region. Indeed, as we have seen, the pleated scarf in any

form is most exceptional in t.he art of Siam, and in this particular

form it is an exclusive pecnliarit.y of t.his category of statue from

N akhon Sri-'l'hammarat.

3. Olluw Lowl V ar·ial-ions f1'U/Ii. lfw N al'ional Styli•

During the Aynthya period, Nakhon ::)ri-Tbmnmarat enjoyed,

from t.ime to time, great material prosperity. 'l'his pt·osperity is

rctiected in the quantity and t·ichness- if not the artistic genius- of

its statuary.

Although images were also made in stone, wood, or plaster,

it if! essent.ially a statuary of bronze, and by nnri large it has

accepted the authority of the National Style. The gr·eat majority

of the statuar·y of the Nakhon region of the Ayutltya period, what­

ever its material, is not easily distinguishable, if at all, from con­

temporat•y examples of Aynthya.

A lesser number of images from Nakhon Sr'i-Thammarat of

the Aynthya period- chiefly in bronze- display perceptible varia­

tions from the National Style. F'or convenience, this class of ht·onzt•s

may be subdivided into four categories.

The tirst- more or less dit·ectly inspired by the "Sihing"­

has already been discussed.

'l'he secflnd category (Fig. 28) is much like the first, in that

tho legs are et·ossed with soles turned up, the right hand perform~:;

the gestm·e of ill nr-rwi)tt.yrt, the ra11m1: is generally in the form of a

lntu,;.lllld, and the form of face and feature recalls those of the tirst

eategory. But the pleated scarf is lacking. The scarf is a sllOJ't,

Fig. 29.

Fig. 28. .Hronze .Hnddha, Uollection of Lndy Chue S~tmala Snkhapara , Nakhon STi-Thammarat Height : 21 em.

Bronze Buddha, Wat Maha­That, Nakhon STi-ThammaTat.

Height : 44 em.

Fig. 30. Bronze Buddha, Collectia.n of Lady Chue Sumala Sukhapara, Nakhon Sri-Tharnmarat.

Height : 55 em.

(-fig. 31.

B1·onze Bud­dha, Collection of MT, Cha1·oen Limpichati, Nakhon STi­Thamma?·at.

Height : 85 em.

Fig. 33. Bronze Bucldhas, Collection of M?". ChaTom~ Limpichati, Nakhon S1·i -Thammm·at.

Height of Central Figure : 1 m.

Fig. 32. B ron ze Buddha, Collection of MT. ChaToen Limpichati, Nakhon STi­Thammcwat.

Height : 69 em.

Fig. 34. BTonze Bnddha, Wat Maha-Thut,

Na !chon STi-Thammu rat.

Fig. 35. lJTonze li~taann, w at lVC£-l:'tLrn-.uan, Nakhon liri-'l'hammarat.

Height : 2.28 m. ( Detail)

------.-. ~-----~---

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE AYUTHYA PERIOD 55

single fold of cloth, ending in a fish-tail notch, somewhere near the

lefl nipple. Except for the facial features, there is nothing typolo.

gical to distinguish this category from a kind of belated aud

degenerate version of the early Ohiengsaen sty I e.

'l'he third category (Figs. 29 & i10) is at one further remove

from the "Sihfng" type. The Buddha is seated with the oue leg

superimposed on the other, rather than cross.legged. The right

hand usually performs the gesture of 11fa?·av£jayrt, but sometimes

both hands lie in the lap.· The scarf is usually represented as a

long single fold of cloth. 'l'his category is a large and rather

diverse one. Heterogeneous as this category is, (•ach object in it

has- by definition - something to distinguish it fi'Olll the ordin~ny

Ayuthya period sty]e. Most usually, it is a pecnlial'ity of facial

form or feature. The seated Buddha is sometimes represented as

''Wearing the Paraphernalia of Royalty'' (in Siamese, 8rmg.k1t1·ii.rmg)

( not illustrated ).21

'l'he fonrth and last category- standing Buddhas- is also a

heterogeneous one. (Figs. 31-35 ). Again, it is usually the rounu­

ness of face or some peculiarity of facial feature that distingnisht>s

these figures from their contemporaries of Ayuthya. 1'he most.

common position of the arms is with both forearms extended

forward and hands raised (''Calming the Ocean") ; less frequently

only the r'ight forearm is extended and the hand raised ("Forbidding

the Relatives to Dispute" ) , or only the left. ("Rejecting the

21. Song-kh1·Uang ·is common enough in the National

School, but mm·e often rep1·esented ?·n stand-ing than 1'n 8eated

jigu1·es. The Khmer and "pseudo-Khmer·" schools of Lopbw·i P1'0-

duced song-khrttang Bttddhas, both seated and stand·ing. Song­

khrt\ang seated Buddhas a1·c encounte1·ed in 0 hiengma£ art ( " Li.t.le

Chiengsaen art"), and a.l.~o £n the 8 han styles (K eng tung and Ohieng-

1'U.ng) of the 16·18th centur·ie.~. which derive from, o·r a1·e infiuenl.'cd

by, 1'·ibetnn and Nepalese art. Of. Mus., Le Buddha par(•, BRF EO,

val. XXVIII, 1928.

56 LUANG BORIBAi.. AND A.B. GRISWOLD

Sandal wood Image"). The last-named position appears more fre-

(!Uently in the art of Nakhon Sri-'l'hammarat than in the ordinary

art of the National School. We have remarked above on its inci­

dence in the 17th- century atel1'er of Ch;:tiya. It seems to be a

peculiarity that had some popularity in Peninsular Siam in the

Ayuthya period, but little or none in other parts of Siam.22 Among

the Nak.laon Sri-Thammarat standing Buddhas, song-khr·i.'c.an(J is

floequent t Figs. 31-35, with the exception of two of the images in

Fig. 33). A form of song-klwii.ano elaborated with special luxuriance

is frequently encountered. Some of these song-lch'l·ii,o.ng standing

Buddhas of Nakhon wear slippers with upturned toes. 23

Several examples of the categories listed above are

illustrated here. With the few exceptions noted, all the examples

illustrated are in various collections in Nakhon Sri-Tha.mmarat it­

self. So far as can be determined, the provenance of all of them

is local. Some of them are in various Wats in the town, and have

probably heen there ever since they were cast. Others were brought

in recent times to th~ museum of Wat Ma.ha-'l'hat, at Nakhon Sri­

'l'hnuuuarat., from various Wats in the neighboring country-side.

Still others are in prh·ate collection~, accumulated locally within

the last ;,o years.

22. Lilco so many o1Jse·rl.'ctlwns on llw rwt of 8-iam, tJt.is

rnw is ba,serl on rm imp1·ession dM·ived fr·om the exam•ination of a. jail'ly limited number of examples 1'he art of Siam still awaits

"· systematic and }Hl'inslrtlcing statist-icrtl cmalysis based o·n photo­

grrtphs of ver·y large numbe·rs of images. 1'his method, which lw.~

been rt[J[Jlierl by 1) hilippe ~'-,1 ten1. to the a1·t of 0 ambodia w-ith imp,·es­

M>ve r·e.ntlts, miyht be e.x peeled to yield a 11.umber of sur pr1:ses in the

1:ase of Simnese a1·t. It would certninlu morl•ify many of ou1· pr·e­

sent conceptions rtnd an.swe1' a great mtrnhe?· of the questions that

·/lOll' 2YUZ.,:le us. (0 f. Uoed'es, 1'n .J S ~..;;,•, vol . .. Y X X I, 1989, p. 192.)

28. '1' he rrJ presenta.tion of such slippe?'S ·is usunllu a.ssor:iated

with the statunry of the 1·eign of K·ing Bor·omakot of Ayuthya

(1788-17.58) f/1/{llaler r·e1:gns.

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE A YUTHY A PERIOD 57

The examples chosen do not pretend to give either a com­

prehensive inventory of the local variations from the National Style

or a sel~ctive sampling of the best works of art of the locality.

They will, however, serve to give the reader a glimpse of the

different sorts of variations which persisted ft·om earlier times, or

eropped np from still undefined sources, in the art of N akhon St·i­

'l'hammarat in the Aynthya period.

58 LUANG BOIUBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

CONCLUSION

The authority of the National Style, radiating from the

capital at Ayuthya from about the 15th century onwards, imposed

on the scnlpttue of Siam a kind of standardization which few

artists escaped at all, and none completely. Even in those local

schools which preserved some measure of artistic autonomy, most.

of the statues pr·oduced in the Ayuthya period conform faithfully

enough to the National type. It is a minority that ~ows any

notable val'iution in some details, and even this minority conforms

in other details to the National Style.

In Peniosular Siam, there were at least two centers - Ohaiya

and Nakhon Sr·i-'l'hammarat- which, in addition to large quantities

of statuary of the eonventional sort, produced a lesser nnmber of

images displaying local peculiarities.

Some varieties- such as the ~;~even Standing Buddhas of

Ohaiya, and the N akhon Sl'i-'l'hammarat "Sihing" series- are so

distinctive as to justify the notion of separate "schools" of art; bnt

these same schools produced many other wor·ks showing lesser varia­

tions fr·om the National Style or none at all.

In some cases, t.he local peculiarities can be plausibly

connected with earlier styles; in others, they were inspired by

more or less direct imitation of famous statues locally admired.

Whatever their precise origin, these variations, more or less in

defiance of the artistic authol'ity of the National School, can only

be explained on the ground of gratification of local traditions of

veneration or taste.

SCULPTURE OF SIAM IN THE AYUTHYA PERIOD 59

ADDENDA

1. Page 4, note 3. A further study of the U-Thong style which we are now making suggests that U-Thong bronzes were still

being made in the 15th century and perhaps a good deal later.

2. Page 7, note 7. The U-'l'hong Buddha illustrated in

LeMay, op. cit., fig. 169, is really made of bronze, not stone. ~om:e

stone Bnddhas recently discovered at Aynthya are possibly of

l_;-Thong style.

3. Page 12, paragraph 1. The "magic syllable" Om. For the

significance of this, see .LT. Boeles, 1'he M iyration of lhe Mngic

8 yllable Om, India Anti qua, Leyden, 194 7.

4. Page 12, ~.Qte lti. 'l'hroughout this article the word "scal'f" is used for convenience to denote a feature which is

practically universal in the Buddha-images of Siam which wear a

monastic robe leaving the right shoulder bare. 'l'his feature portrays a fold of cloth over the left shoulder, falling a certain

distance down the chest in front; sometimes it originates in the

back, somewhere near the waist, whereas sometimes it is not depicted in the back at all and seems to originate at the shouldet·.

Often it is not very clear whether this featnre is intended to

t•epresent a samghati, or a fold of the civara as worn in ancient

times.

5. Page 1~. uote 5. 'fhe " donble gesture" of these statuettes

is reminiscent of a double gesture performed by several Bodhisattva­

images from Peninsular Siam which are commonly classified as "Sri Vijaya ". This is another link between t.he School of Chaiya

and the earlier styles of the Peninsula. Sometimes these Bodhi­sattvas held a lotus in the hand which would otherwise appear to be "bestow.ing favors". The double gesture is also fonnd in certain Bodhisattvas ft·om Yunnan and elsewhere. See Chapin, Y iinna11e.~e I mnges of Avalok~:tesvara, Harvard J onrnal of Asiatic Studies, 1944;

cf. de Mall mann, I ntroduct·ion ;, l'{~tude d' Avalokitecvara., Paris,

1948.

60 LUANG BORIBAL AND A.B. GRISWOLD

6. Page 50, note 18. There are also some Dvaravati statues

having a pleated "scarf". The outstanding example is the great

stone Buddha, seated in the "European fashion", at Phra Pathom.

In this case however it is not perfectly certain whether the "scarf" is original or was added when the statue was restored in the 19th

century.

ERRATA

Page 3;,, note, line 3. For "to the Peninsular" read

"to the Peninsula".

Page au, line 8. For "images Dvaravati" read

"images- Dvaravati ".

Page 3ti, line 9. For " style served " read " style - served".

Page 39, note 3, last line, For "bronze" read "bronzes".